I am a pussy - admits Kevin Petersen
CricketLeague
India in England, 2007
Pietersen shaken by beamer
Cricinfo staff
August 5, 2007
Kevin Pietersen has admitted that he was fearful for his safety when
Sreesanth sent down a beamer during the second Test at Trent Bridge. It was
one of a number of incidents during a highly-charged match, which India won
by seven wickets to take a 1-0 series lead.
Pietersen was batting on the fourth afternoon when Sreesanth, who struggled
for his rhythm throughout the game, let go a beamer which flew past
Pietersen's head as the batsman managed to sway out of the way. A few overs
later an unsettled Pietersen was trapped lbw, padding up, by RP Singh.
"I was shaken up on a cricket pitch for the first time in my life at Trent
Bridge and I'm not too proud to admit it," Pietersen said in his News of the
World column. "I thought the beamer that Sreesanth bowled at me was going to
take my head off.
"People say that sport is not a matter of life and death, but for a few
seconds there I thought my number was up. Luckily, I just managed to get out
of the way but I ended up in a heap on the pitch thinking 'that could have
killed me'.
"I was not physically shaking or throwing up, but it definitely unsettled me
mentally and that has never happened before. I'm a lucky boy to have quick
reflexes otherwise I could have been a goner."
Rodney
well for the majority of the human race.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Geico Caveman
> With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
> well for the majority of the human race.
>
Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet for
the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the batsman,
this very same person would be raising hell and calling Sidebottom Bush's
sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual trash talk he puts out
under his various identities.
Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is on
the other foot.
I remember a certain former Zimbabwean medium pacer by the name of Eddo
Brandes bowling a beamer to Tendulkar (I am nearly certain that is who it
was) in the 90s. It made me sick even though I was certain that Brandes,
being the ineffectual bowler he was, had simply lost control. I am nearly
certain that that is what happened in the case of Sreesanth. However, it is
impossible to not feel some sympathy for the batsman, who could easily have
been seriously injured or worse by something like this. If we estimate that
Sreesanth bowls at about 80 mph, and that the average cricket delivery
loses about 30 mph after bouncing on the pitch, the speed at which that
ball whistled past Pietersen's head must have been around 110 mph. That is
a potentially lethal situation.
I do not however agree with Mike Atherton's calls for Sreesanth to be banned
for a Test match. There have been more egregious beamers in the recent
past, but the bowler has immediately apologized and the batting team has
usually shrugged it off with somewhat reluctant good humour.
What made this incident bigger than it was were Sreesanth's other antics,
most notably his shoulder charging of Vaughan, which is absolutely not on.
I can understand passion or even rage in a bowler, but when it translates
into something other than fiery bowling, I lose quite a bit of interest in
the childish antics. Prior and Cook's jelly bean irrigation was wrong
headed in itself and our batsmen can probably take heart from the fact that
this English team can apparently be reduced to shedding sweet tears with
such ease.
Thanks to Zaheer's peerless bowling with RP Singh's able support, we managed
to get through 20 English wickets. Otherwise, we were one pacer short as
Sreesanth was apparently more interested in games with the demons in his
head than the simpler battle of pitching the ball in the right areas,
making the batsmen play and making their stay at the crease as cricketingly
uncomfortable as possible.
It is futile for me point out to the OP that at the end of the day, this is
still a game, and not a battle for life and death. There is nothing wrong
with being sour and mean to your opponents and build mental pressure, but
targetted physical harm, intentional or otherwise, has no justification.
That is what converted Bodyline into a diplomatic incident. There is no
reason to go down that road.
Its sad that the most genteel cricketing rivalry of all - the India-England
rivalry, has been spoilt by such events. But one can live with that as long
as these antics are cut out.
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f96t17$lm8$1...@aioe.org...
Your mathematics is unusual, to say the least.
Bowling speeds as displayed on the television are measurements taken
immediately after the ball leaves the bowler's hand, after which it slows
significantly whether or not it bounces. Your 110mph is a massive
exaggeration.
Still potentially lethal of course.
<snip>
Andrew
kenh...@hotmail.com
> "Geico Caveman" <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
I thought it was a well constructed and rational precis of the recent
events.
I'm not exactly sure of the mathematics, given that the fastest
recorded bowling speeds are, I believe, 90mph.
I'm no expert, so I'm not exactly sure how this is measured. You say
it's when the ball leaves the hand.
Whatever, I'm sure they usually measure standard deliveries, as
opposed to beamers.
Again, I'm sure there is an expert amongst us (a physicist?) who can
tell us if a cricket ball is likely to accerlerate over 22 yds after
leaving the hand, given that there will be no deceleration due to
friction (hitting the ground), so no loss of kinetic energy(?).
Would it accelerate at all?
You're saying it significantly slows. I'm not convinced of that.
Whatever, I reckon beamers are going pretty fast when they go past
your head
Higgs
Rodney
> Rodney wrote:
>
>> With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
>> well for the majority of the human race.
>
> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority,
Thank Providence.
I think that I'd shown up 'til last night some admirable self-restraint
in not picking holes in the ingrained folly of that goose's every post,
but, alas, I had a weak moment last night (possibly the result of the
worst bout of flu I've ever experienced) and simply couldn't help
myself. That said, there's only so much junk I can ignore -- especially
in ailing health.
> so there is hope yet for
> the human race.
Yay.
> If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the batsman,
> this very same person would be raising hell and calling Sidebottom Bush's
> sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual trash talk he puts out
> under his various identities.
Got'im pegged. (On that note, how, exactly, *does* one go about creating
an alternative nom de plume? There's a troll in me just waiting to wreak
havoc.)
> Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is on
> the other foot.
Too true.
> I remember a certain former Zimbabwean medium pacer by the name of Eddo
> Brandes
Ah yes. Cicket's favourite poultry farmer...
> bowling a beamer to Tendulkar (I am nearly certain that is who it
> was) in the 90s. It made me sick even though I was certain that Brandes,
> being the ineffectual bowler he was
Oi! He massacred the Poms once upon a time.
> had simply lost control. I am nearly
> certain that that is what happened in the case of Sreesanth.
As am I. In spite of Sreesanth's ostensibly fiery and highly-strung
disposition, I feel that it's a mere facade, quite akin to that which
his great mate Nel so imprudently exhibits.
I don't think it's at all fair to accuse Sreesanth of being malicious
enough to fell someone deliberately and illegitimately.
> However, it is
> impossible to not feel some sympathy for the batsman, who could easily have
> been seriously injured or worse by something like this. If we estimate that
> Sreesanth bowls at about 80 mph, and that the average cricket delivery
> loses about 30 mph after bouncing on the pitch, the speed at which that
> ball whistled past Pietersen's head must have been around 110 mph. That is
> a potentially lethal situation.
And one'd hardly be worthy of the "pussy" tag for being a touch
flustered by it.
> I do not however agree with Mike Atherton's calls for Sreesanth to be banned
> for a Test match.
Neither do I.
Athers was talking recently on "Sky" (along with Beefy and Gower) about
how difficult he finds it in penning his column to take a different
angle to that which everyone else'll be taking. I really don't think
that he's got much strength in this conviction -- it'd make him a proper
hypocrite --; he was obviously just adopting the outspoken approach that
gets contemporary newspaper columns read.
> There have been more egregious beamers in the recent
> past, but the bowler has immediately apologized and the batting team has
> usually shrugged it off with somewhat reluctant good humour.
>
> What made this incident bigger than it was were Sreesanth's other antics,
Anyone with an ounce of brain-powder could deduce that -- which, of
course, says tons for the quantity of cerebral residue possessed of our
more candid RSC regulars.
> most notably his shoulder charging of Vaughan, which is absolutely not on.
> I can understand passion or even rage in a bowler, but when it translates
> into something other than fiery bowling, I lose quite a bit of interest in
> the childish antics.
Having only just departed juvenility myself, I find them hilarious.
> Prior and Cook's jelly bean irrigation was wrong
But funny.
> headed in itself and our batsmen can probably take heart from the fact that
> this English team can apparently be reduced to shedding sweet tears with
> such ease.
>
> Thanks to Zaheer's peerless bowling with RP Singh's able support,
I might have been watching old footage of one of Wasim or Waqar when
R.P. sent down that out-and-out boomerang to peg back Prior's
middle-stick. Great to watch.
> we managed
> to get through 20 English wickets. Otherwise, we were one pacer short as
> Sreesanth was apparently more interested in games with the demons in his
> head than the simpler battle of pitching the ball in the right areas,
> making the batsmen play and making their stay at the crease as cricketingly
> uncomfortable as possible.
>
> It is futile for me point out to the OP that at the end of the day, this is
> still a game, and not a battle for life and death.
Indeed. Don't bother.
> There is nothing wrong
> with being sour and mean to your opponents and build mental pressure, but
> targetted physical harm, intentional or otherwise, has no justification.
> That is what converted Bodyline into a diplomatic incident. There is no
> reason to go down that road.
Ah. You bothered.
> Its sad that the most genteel cricketing rivalry of all - the India-England
> rivalry, has been spoilt by such events. But one can live with that as long
> as these antics are cut out.
Well put.
chuckles_the...@budweiser.com
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvind/content/current/story/305604....
What a jerk.
He's got a helmet on hasn't he?
Maybe he needs to pick up a weapon, get himself off to Iraq and stand
at post.
Then he'll really be able to say "I thought my number was up".
arahim
A ball is a passive object. Once it leaves the hand it cannot
accelerate (except the acceleration due to gravity). If there were no
air or the pitch gravity would be the only force acting on the ball.
But since there is air friction it decelerates. Also since the ball
and pitch are not perfectly elastic bodies on impact some of the balls
energy is lost. So the only acceleration is in the "down" direction
due to gravity. In the direction "parrallel" to the pitch there is
only deceleration.
> Whatever, I reckon beamers are going pretty fast when they go past
> your head
>
> Higgs- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
CricketLeague
<chuckles_the...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:1186418015.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
The best part is these PUSSIES keep bragging about their BRAVERY to the rest
of the world...........Lmao......
CricketLeague
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:5hod2nF...@mid.individual.net...
Geico Caveman aka Madhusudhan Singh sucks western dicks for
free............which is why it exaggerates to show its slavishness and
fetish for western dicks......
Any western fags can get this Indian slave Madhusudhan Singhs sexual
services FOR FREE.........
arahim
wrote:
> Rodney wrote:
> > With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
> > well for the majority of the human race.
>
> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet for
> the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the batsman,
> this very same person would be raising hell and calling Sidebottom Bush's
> sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual trash talk he puts out
> under his various identities.
>
> Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is on
> the other foot.
>
Applause. Hear, hear. One hopes you remember your own good advice when
you next think of Pakistan.
CricketLeague
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f96t17$lm8$1...@aioe.org...
>
>> With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
>> well for the majority of the human race.
>>
>
> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet
> for
> the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the batsman,
> this very same person would be raising hell and calling Sidebottom Bush's
> sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual trash talk he puts out
> under his various identities.
SLAVISH dickhead,
I never complained about the western bowlers aiming for Indian batsmens head
or bodies...........My only complaint was when the SAME STANDARDS were NOT
applied to bowlers on either side like when SreeSanth was fined but not
Andre Nel in South Africa series....
> Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is
> on
> the other foot.
Poor british cricket players.........SreeSanth almost took out the stump and
disemboweled Michael Vaughan as per Sir Holmans or Sir Robson.......
SreeSanth is a a CRIMINAL and a TERRORIST..........He should be locked away
in Guantanamo bay for bowling a beamer at the superior brit Kevin
Petersen........Lmao....
Rodney
Which is all that matters in this instance.
arahim
> "Geico Caveman" <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
It is wrong.
> Bowling speeds as displayed on the television are measurements taken
> immediately after the ball leaves the bowler's hand, after which it slows
> significantly whether or not it bounces. Your 110mph is a massive
> exaggeration.
>
> Still potentially lethal of course.
>
> <snip>
>
> Andrew- Hide quoted text -
Rodney
How on Earth could the ball speed up after leaving the hand?
> given that there will be no deceleration due to
> friction (hitting the ground), so no loss of kinetic energy(?).
What about wind resistance and gravity?
Hawkeye has occasionally offered evidence of the ball's slowing down as
it makes its progress through the air. Keep an eye out.
Rodney
Hello, Mr Franklin.
Andrew Dunford
<chuckles_the...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:1186418015.1...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Go easy on the lad: his left brain cell had gone walkabout and the right one
was feeling lonely.
Bear in mind the phrase "Pietersen said in his News of the World column". In
other words, he probably said "it was a piece of piss" or indeed nothing at
all.
Andrew
arahim
It indeed can. Consider that when the ball leaves the bowler's hand it
has a speed of 80 mph. For simplicity cosider this to be in the
horizontal direction ie the vertical speed is zero. With negligible
air resistance the ball will continue to travel in the horizontal
direction at 80 mph but due to the force of gravity it will now also
have a vertical component. The total speed is the square root of the
sum of squares of the speed in the horizontal and vertical directions.
For somplicity I have considered only two dimensions. There can also
be alateral component imparted by the bowler.
But to get the numbers that Geico is claiming (with negiligible air
resistance) Sreesanth would have to be about 200 ft tall (well or
atleast have a 200 ft jump at the point of delivery).
> > given that there will be no deceleration due to
> > friction (hitting the ground), so no loss of kinetic energy(?).
>
> What about wind resistance and gravity?
>
> Hawkeye has occasionally offered evidence of the ball's slowing down as
> it makes its progress through the air. Keep an eye out.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
Rodney
A brief squiz past the terminology, figures and general
informed-sounding stuff was more than enough for me. You win.
R. Bharat Rao
> Bowling speeds as displayed on the television are measurements taken
> immediately after the ball leaves the bowler's hand, after which it slows
> significantly whether or not it bounces. Your 110mph is a massive
> exaggeration.
>
> Still potentially lethal of course.
Actually the speed measurement is the speed as it leaves
the bowler's hand. The point, however, is well taken in that
the normal delivery that bounces and rears up near the head,
travels about 25 yards and slows down dramatically on bouncing.
The beamer travels on 21 yards and doesn't slow anywhere near
as much -- so the effect could well be comparable to playing
a bouncer at 110 mph :-)
Bharat
arahim
The idea was to explain it. If it was still confusing then I have
failed to give a simple enough explanation.
> --
arahim
Maybe this will clarify. Consider a ball you are holding in your hand
and you just let it drop. The initial speed of the ball was zero. It
goes straight down due to gravity. It now has some speed. Infact it is
speeding up all the time until it hits the ground.
> --
CricketLeague
"Rodney" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:46b75c79$0$31535$8826...@free.teranews.com...
Hello Rodney King,
If you are talking about Benjamin Franklin who posts on rsc, he is a WHITE
RACIST......
Dont forget to get off those hallucinating drugs......
kenh...@hotmail.com
I am no physicist. I assumed that it would be given momentum as it
left the hand.
arahim has explained it well enough.
I accept it wouldn't accelerate.
I wasn't trying to say it would reach 110mph.
> > given that there will be no deceleration due to
> > friction (hitting the ground), so no loss of kinetic energy(?).
>
> What about wind resistance and gravity?
Probably less effect than the ball hitting the ground in a 'normal'
delivery, ie it would be travelling faster than a 'normal' delivery
when it reached the batsman.
>
> Hawkeye has occasionally offered evidence of the ball's slowing down as
> it makes its progress through the air. Keep an eye out.
>
I don't doubt it slows down.
By how much is what I an interested in
Higgs
CricketLeague
"arahim" <arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186421372....@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 3:26 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Rodney wrote:
>> > With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
>> > well for the majority of the human race.
>>
>> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet
>> for
>> the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the
>> batsman,
>> this very same person would be raising hell and calling Sidebottom Bush's
>> sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual trash talk he puts out
>> under his various identities.
>>
>> Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is
>> on
>> the other foot.
>>
>
> Applause. Hear, hear. One hopes you remember your own good advice when
> you next think of Pakistan.
Geico Caveman aka Madhusudhan Singh doesnt think like that in case of
non-white people and countries........Thats his unique speciality,
superiority and intellect....
CricketLeague
Sir Andrew Dunford,
Why dont you stop misdirecting readers and admit Kevin Petersen is a
pussy......
Phil.
It's easier to calculate than a bouncing ball, assuming a ball
launched at the head at 80 mph (36m/sec) and using the normal drag
equation with a drag coefficient of 0.4 for a new ball (0.2 for an old
ball) the deceleration due to drag is ~8m/sec^2 (4m/sec^2). So in the
time it takes the ball to hit the batsman it will decelerate about 5m/
sec (2.5m/sec) so it will hit him at a velocity between 33.5 and 31 m/
sec ( 75 - 69 mph). Hit on the side of the helmet he will be in
hospital with concussion if he's lucky. (Piazza hit by Clemens in MLB
is a comparable example)
max.it
wrote:
If I am not wrong, the speed of the beamer as it past the batsman was
around 60 odds mph maybe 63 or 68.
Which is probably the speed that a good bouncer is at when it reaches
the batsman.
CricketLeague
"Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:1186444796.6...@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Indian batsmen got hit on the shoulder, thigh and back of the helmet by
bouncers in South Africa. Sachin got hit on the grill by a bouncer from
James Anderson in Lords test. I didnt see Indian fans scream, shout and cry
like babies like the pommies are doing about SreeSanths beamer......
These pommie losers and pussies would have asked their govt to declare war
on India if SreeSanths beamer actually hit Kevin
Petersen.........Lmao.......
Phil.
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:52:56 -0700, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> If I am not wrong, the speed of the beamer as it past the batsman was
> around 60 odds mph maybe 63 or 68.
> Which is probably the speed that a good bouncer is at when it reaches
> the batsman.
>
True, except of course that the angle of impact is different which
makes a significant difference to the impulse of the impact.
Think about a snooker table, hit the white ball directly at the object
ball compare the result with when you hit the object ball at ~ 45º.
It's not directly comparable because the cricketball impact will
probably be a 'stickier' collision and will transfer more momentum.
arahim
If a ball hits flush it pretty much imparts all its energy no matter
what the angle (The ball just usually drops dead). Ofcourse if it
grazes then it's a different matter all together.
Phil.
Flush is by definition at 90º!
CDK
> friction (hitting the ground)
There is friction through the air.
It would be impossible for the ball to accelerate after it has left the
hand, except as far as gravity is concerned (which would accelerate the
ball earthward at 9.8m/s/s), as there is no further energy being added
to the propulsion of the ball.
>, so no loss of kinetic energy(?).
> Would it accelerate at all?
Only downwards(and negligibly at that), certainly not forwards.
> You're saying it significantly slows. I'm not convinced of that.
I am quite certain it would reduce speed by in excess of 4%
> Whatever, I reckon beamers are going pretty fast when they go past
> your head
That they would be.
CDK
Phil.
As I showed above it'll be between 7-14% depending on the roughness of
the ball.
Phil.
arahim
On a rigid body yes. Consider a beamer straight to the head (approx.
90 degrees). Or a bouncer rising and digging into the ribs at a much
sharper angle initially. But then it does not glance off as on a rigid
body. The human body deforms and absorbs the blow. Many angles can
result in almost all the energy being absorbed.
kenh...@hotmail.com
Si if it reduced by 4mph, you'd be claiming the speed had dropped from
80 to 60?
Nice logic.
Higgs
Geico Caveman
>> Sreesanth bowls at about 80 mph, and that the average cricket delivery
>> loses about 30 mph after bouncing on the pitch, the speed at which that
>> ball whistled past Pietersen's head must have been around 110 mph. That
>> is a potentially lethal situation.
>
> Your mathematics is unusual, to say the least.
My mathematics isn't. My understanding of the measurement is. For some
reason I cannot explain, I always thought that the speed was measured at
the epoch the delivery went past the stumps at the batsman's end.
Thanks for setting me straight on that.
Geico Caveman
> On Aug 6, 3:26 am, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Rodney wrote:
>> > With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
>> > well for the majority of the human race.
>>
>> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet
>> for the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the
>> batsman, this very same person would be raising hell and calling
>> Sidebottom Bush's sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual
>> trash talk he puts out under his various identities.
>>
>> Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is
>> on the other foot.
>>
>
> Applause. Hear, hear. One hopes you remember your own good advice when
> you next think of Pakistan.
>
For an uncanny reason, I knew when I made that post that you would try to
use my words as cover for the actions of a country founded by gangsters and
run by sponsors of a world renowned enterprise of terror - a university and
bank of terror rolled into one.
For your comments to be relevant, neighbouring nations would have set up
infrastructures of terror and send people into Pakistan to kill and maim
its citizens. China and India are too busy with their own economic
struggles, Iran is internally dysfunctional and generally absorbed with
events on its Western frontiers, while Afghanistan is incapable of setting
up any infrastructure of any kind, thanks to its weakness and
Pakistan's "loving care" over the years.
I do not think that the shoe has any remote chance of being on the other
foot. But pray do not let that dismay you. You can always add "the shoe on
the other foot" to the list of stellar excuses that constitute the talking
points of terror apologists, including the all-weather "root causes"
excuse. It might not have the desired effect among informed people, but at
least will ease their tedium of listening to what have been for years,
fairly predictable attempts at Islamist dissimulation.
arahim
wrote:
Your advice was great but hard to follow wasn't it:) It is hard to be
in someone else's shoes. If you agreed mostly with someone else that
advice would not be needed. It is when very sharp differences and
emotions exist when your advice is the most useful and hardest to
follow as you have just found out.
CricketLeague
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
Slavish moron,
What the fuck has paki islamic terrorism has to do with 2006 Oval test
cricket ball ?
Geddit azzhole ????
CricketLeague
On Aug 6, 7:01 pm, "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:05 pm, max.it@teatime (max.it) wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:52:56 -0700, arahim <arahim_ara...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > If I am not wrong, the speed of the beamer as it past the batsman was
> > around 60 odds mph maybe 63 or 68.
> > Which is probably the speed that a good bouncer is at when it reaches
> > the batsman.
>
> True, except of course that the angle of impact is different which
> makes a significant difference to the impulse of the impact.
> Think about a snooker table, hit the white ball directly at the object
> ball compare the result with when you hit the object ball at ~ 45º.
> It's not directly comparable because the cricketball impact will
> probably be a 'stickier' collision and will transfer more momentum.
>>>If a ball hits flush
You dont have to overdo it............I got it......
Rodney
Nah, mate. It makes total sense. I was in a strange mood last night.
Rodney
Thanks. I follow you. You will have noticed, though, that Hawkeye thinks
a tad differently. Waddaya make of it?
Rodney
He doesn't anymore, and I may be forgiven for believing that he'd
assumed a new identity, based on your (a) overzealous capitalisation,
(b) libellous vitriol, (c) extraordinarily extended ellipses, (d)
limited argumentative skills, (e) weak grasp of the English language and
(f) apparently intimate knowledge of the sexual activities of R.S.C.
posters.
> he is a WHITE
> RACIST......
>
> Dont forget to get off those hallucinating drugs......
Cold-turkey ain't my thing.
Rodney
He did indeed.
> I accept it wouldn't accelerate.
> I wasn't trying to say it would reach 110mph.
>
>>> given that there will be no deceleration due to
>>> friction (hitting the ground), so no loss of kinetic energy(?).
>> What about wind resistance and gravity?
>
> Probably less effect than the ball hitting the ground in a 'normal'
> delivery, ie it would be travelling faster than a 'normal' delivery
> when it reached the batsman.
O'course, but I was referring to those elements as possible obstacles to
acceleration.
>> Hawkeye has occasionally offered evidence of the ball's slowing down as
>> it makes its progress through the air. Keep an eye out.
>>
>
> I don't doubt it slows down.
> By how much is what I an interested in
Still, it makes intriguing viewing.
Rodney
Erm. I haven't read the entire post, but it looks to me like he said
four *per cent* rather than 4mph.
Rodney
Comparisons with the ground aside.
Spaceman Spiff
> chig...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 8:56 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
>
>
>> You're saying it significantly slows. I'm not convinced of that.
>
>
> I am quite certain it would reduce speed by in excess of 4%
>
would that be a slight or a considerable change?
--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff
get your own damn grateful dead lyrics.
http://arts.ucsc.edu/gdead/agdl/
CricketLeague
Plenty of usenet posters capitalize.
> (b) libellous vitriol, (c) extraordinarily extended ellipses, (d) limited
> argumentative skills, (e) weak grasp of the English language and
The WHITE RACIST Benjamin Franklin must have voted for bush, the english
expert.........Dont blame him.....
> (f) apparently intimate knowledge of the sexual activities of R.S.C.
> posters.
Not everybody is gifted with the same abilities.........
Rodney
:)
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
"This thing can be done," said Spofforth.
It was.
arahim
In reality the air resistance will have a large effect in decelerating
(compared to any possible gain due to gravity). In any practical case
the speed of the ball will be much slower when it passes the striker
than when the ball left the bowler's hand.
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
Phil.
>
> > - Show quoted text -
As I've shown in this thread a new cricket ball bowled with a
horizontal velocity will decelerate initially at ~8m/sec^2 and it will
accelerate downwards due to gravity at ~9.8 m/sec^2.
Phil.
Hotcocky
> As I've shown in this thread a new cricket ball bowled with a
> horizontal velocity will decelerate initially at ~8m/sec^2 and it will
Ermmm...you stated this.
> accelerate downwards due to gravity at ~9.8 m/sec^2.
>
> Phil.
>
Then there's the wind to take into account; the fact that the ball may
be moving laterally, too, depending on the way it's released; the
direction of the seam; angular velocity in various planes; the direction
of the slope(s) of the pitch; altitude; and surely the Coriolis effect
will affect the ball differently depending on the hemisphere (q.v.
flushing toilets).
And I see there may be quantum effects, too...
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/cricket.html
In short, as soon as the ball leaves the hand it slows down. Until, that
is, Murali finds a way to convert the rotational speed of his turdra
delivery into forward momentum with the wind behind him at the Basin
Reserve.
Dr HC.
Atul Thombre
> Rodney wrote:
>
>> With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
>> well for the majority of the human race.
>>
>
> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet
> for
> the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the batsman,
> this very same person would be raising hell and calling Sidebottom Bush's
> sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual trash talk he puts out
> under his various identities.
I dont know what the OP would have said, but there would have been 100 other
posters who would have bet their entire fortune that the ball slipped out of
Anderson's hand.
>
> Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is
> on
> the other foot.
>
> I remember a certain former Zimbabwean medium pacer by the name of Eddo
> Brandes bowling a beamer to Tendulkar (I am nearly certain that is who it
> was) in the 90s. It made me sick even though I was certain that Brandes,
> being the ineffectual bowler he was, had simply lost control. I am nearly
> certain that that is what happened in the case of Sreesanth. However, it
> is
See the difference in describing both the incidents. This poster is
'certain' that Brandes lost control, but is 'nearly certain' about
Sreesanth.
> What made this incident bigger than it was were Sreesanth's other antics,
> most notably his shoulder charging of Vaughan, which is absolutely not on.
But, all the verbal volleys by English players and jelly-bean incident [if
it was indeed intentional] was definitely ON, correct?
:-)
Atul.
Rodney
Makes sense. Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Rodney Ulyate
"This thing can be done," said Spofforth.
It was.
--
kenh...@hotmail.com
> "Geico Caveman" <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
Surely they can be both 'not on'.
Or are you suggesting that the jelly bean incident (which has
attracted an enormous amount of angst) is 'not on', yet shoulder
barging etc is 'on'?
You can't seriously be siding with CricketLeague, can you?
Higgs
Geico Caveman
> "Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f96t17$lm8$1...@aioe.org...
>> Rodney wrote:
>>
>>> With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
>>> well for the majority of the human race.
>>>
>>
>> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet
>> for
>> the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the
>> batsman, this very same person would be raising hell and calling
>> Sidebottom Bush's sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual
>> trash talk he puts out under his various identities.
>
> I dont know what the OP would have said, but there would have been 100
> other posters who would have bet their entire fortune that the ball
> slipped out of Anderson's hand.
The OP's monomaniacal obsession with the colour of people's skin is rather
too well known in RSC, regardless of the identity that he chooses to don,
to not know what he would have said.
>
>>
>> Its interesting how basic human decencies are forgotten when the shoe is
>> on
>> the other foot.
>>
>> I remember a certain former Zimbabwean medium pacer by the name of Eddo
>> Brandes bowling a beamer to Tendulkar (I am nearly certain that is who it
>> was) in the 90s. It made me sick even though I was certain that Brandes,
>> being the ineffectual bowler he was, had simply lost control. I am nearly
>> certain that that is what happened in the case of Sreesanth. However, it
>> is
>
> See the difference in describing both the incidents. This poster is
> 'certain' that Brandes lost control, but is 'nearly certain' about
> Sreesanth.
>
Might have something to do with the largely uncontroversial fact that
Sreesanth is a superior bowler compared to Brandes (and hence, less
expected to lose control over a ball), and unlike Brandes, has a cultivated
reputation for doing certain antics on the field.
Those are enough to raise a small smidgen of doubt.
>> What made this incident bigger than it was were Sreesanth's other antics,
>> most notably his shoulder charging of Vaughan, which is absolutely not
>> on.
>
> But, all the verbal volleys by English players and jelly-bean incident [if
> it was indeed intentional] was definitely ON, correct?
I take it that you don't believe in reading carefully.
"Prior and Cook's jelly bean irrigation was wrong headed in itself and our
batsmen can probably take heart from the fact that this English team can
apparently be reduced to shedding sweet tears with such ease."
I do not care what Prior and Cook do with the jelly beans, since they did
not put Zaheer in any physical danger, rather, fortunately for us, fired
him up to go after these losers in a very effective fashion. As far as I am
concerned, in T3, the English (Prior, Cook, Pietersen, Vaughan, more the
merrier) should bait all our bowlers with jelly beans, gulab jamuns,
jalebis, whatever else their adolescent imagination takes fancy to, as long
as it motivates our bowlers to later f*** their batting order effectively.
Obviously, this assumes that this does not happen to us in the fourth
innings.
CricketLeague
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1186580426.2...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Are you going to petition your govt to incarcerate him in Gbay for siding
with me ?
CricketLeague
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> Atul Thombre wrote:
>
>> "Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:f96t17$lm8$1...@aioe.org...
>>> Rodney wrote:
>>>
>>>> With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
>>>> well for the majority of the human race.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet
>>> for
>>> the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the
>>> batsman, this very same person would be raising hell and calling
>>> Sidebottom Bush's sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual
>>> trash talk he puts out under his various identities.
>>
>> I dont know what the OP would have said, but there would have been 100
>> other posters who would have bet their entire fortune that the ball
>> slipped out of Anderson's hand.
>
> The OP's monomaniacal obsession with the colour of people's skin is rather
> too well known in RSC, regardless of the identity that he chooses to don,
> to not know what he would have said.
The monomaniacal obsession of the op is not with the skin color but rather
with your SLAVISH brain that is SCREAMING for help.....
arahim
wrote:
> Atul Thombre wrote:
> > "Geico Caveman" <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:f96t17$lm8$1...@aioe.org...
> >> Rodney wrote:
>
> >>> With that as the standard criterion for pussiness, things don't augur
> >>> well for the majority of the human race.
>
> >> Need not go that far. The OP is in a near minority, so there is hope yet
> >> for
> >> the human race. If Anderson had been the bowler and Tendulkar the
> >> batsman, this very same person would be raising hell and calling
> >> Sidebottom Bush's sidekick, "white racist" and the rest of the usual
> >> trash talk he puts out under his various identities.
>
> > I dont know what the OP would have said, but there would have been 100
> > other posters who would have bet their entire fortune that the ball
> > slipped out of Anderson's hand.
>
> The OP's monomaniacal obsession with the colour of people's skin is rather
> too well known in RSC, regardless of the identity that he chooses to don,
> to not know what he would have said.
>
>
Pretty much sums you up if we add nationality as well to the
monomaniacal obsession. Did you have an uncanny feeling as soon as you
wrote this that you would get this response? :)
> innings.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Geico Caveman
>> > Applause. Hear, hear. One hopes you remember your own good advice when
>> > you next think of Pakistan.
>>
>> For an uncanny reason, I knew when I made that post that you would try to
>> use my words as cover for the actions of a country founded by gangsters
>> and run by sponsors of a world renowned enterprise of terror - a
>> university and bank of terror rolled into one.
>>
>> For your comments to be relevant, neighbouring nations would have set up
>> infrastructures of terror and send people into Pakistan to kill and maim
>> its citizens. China and India are too busy with their own economic
>> struggles, Iran is internally dysfunctional and generally absorbed with
>> events on its Western frontiers, while Afghanistan is incapable of
>> setting up any infrastructure of any kind, thanks to its weakness and
>> Pakistan's "loving care" over the years.
>>
>> I do not think that the shoe has any remote chance of being on the other
>> foot. But pray do not let that dismay you. You can always add "the shoe
>> on the other foot" to the list of stellar excuses that constitute the
>> talking points of terror apologists, including the all-weather "root
>> causes" excuse. It might not have the desired effect among informed
>> people, but at least will ease their tedium of listening to what have
>> been for years, fairly predictable attempts at Islamist dissimulation.
>
> Your advice was great but hard to follow wasn't it:) It is hard to be
> in someone else's shoes. If you agreed mostly with someone else that
You are right.
Its humanly impossible to be in Pakistan's (or in general, any Islamist's)
shoes. It would require talents that most of the rest of the world either
does not possess at all or has only very little of. Simultaneous
bloodthirstiness, with native mendacity, coupled with capability to use
propaganda tools effectively, being prone to historical delusions, and a
natural talent for constantly playing the victim - that would require
someone to be a cross between Timur Lang/Stalin, Machiavelli, Goebbels,
Himmler, and well, I could not think of an external example for the last, a
Pakistani leader (ignoring the infinite loop inherent in that example).
Its borderline miraculous that Pakistan produces a steady crop of "people"
with these otherwise unattainable "qualities" (unattainable for a normal
human being, that is).
Geico Caveman
>> > I dont know what the OP would have said, but there would have been 100
>> > other posters who would have bet their entire fortune that the ball
>> > slipped out of Anderson's hand.
>>
>> The OP's monomaniacal obsession with the colour of people's skin is
>> rather too well known in RSC, regardless of the identity that he chooses
>> to don, to not know what he would have said.
>>
>>
>
> Pretty much sums you up if we add nationality as well to the
> monomaniacal obsession. Did you have an uncanny feeling as soon as you
> wrote this that you would get this response? :)
Most definitely :)
CricketLeague
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
Slave Madhusudhan,
You forgot to add my god George Bush Jr aka dubya to the list above. May I
remind you my God George Bush gave $10 bil aid, textile trade subsidies,
debt waivers, AWACS, Transport planes and 60 F-16s to the nation YOU HATE to
nuke India deep inside Indias territory and kill a few million Indians ???
That must be ok with you since it is my and YOUR God George bush who you
consider SUPERIOR because of his you know what.......my monomaniacal
obssession........lmao.....
CricketLeague
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
The joke/sarcasm is on YOU, genius Madhusudhan Singh........
arahim
> Phil. wrote:
> > As I've shown in this thread a new cricket ball bowled with a
> > horizontal velocity will decelerate initially at ~8m/sec^2 and it will
>
> Ermmm...you stated this.
>
> > accelerate downwards due to gravity at ~9.8 m/sec^2.
>
> > Phil.
>
> Then there's the wind to take into account; the fact that the ball may
> be moving laterally, too, depending on the way it's released; the
> direction of the seam; angular velocity in various planes; the direction
> of the slope(s) of the pitch; altitude; and surely the Coriolis effect
> will affect the ball differently depending on the hemisphere (q.v.
> flushing toilets).
>
>
> In short, as soon as the ball leaves the hand it slows down. Until, that
> is, Murali finds a way to convert the rotational speed of his turdra
> delivery into forward momentum with the wind behind him at the Basin
> Reserve.
>
Ha, reminded me of a very very old post of mine about a ball bowled by
Mushtaq that went through the stumps. Couldn't find the original post
but it gets quoted here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/browse_frm/thread/acb9a6c02ebdb2d2/9381ff6956f05d50?lnk=st&q=mushtaq+ball+stumps+through+atif&rnum=1#9381ff6956f05d50
Now boys and girls before you get on my case and physicists start
calling in: It was a joke.
> Dr HC.
arahim
wrote:
I see you have come up with a theory of genetics based on nationality.
Too late: Hitler's psuedo scientists came up with it about 65 years
ago. If the memo did not get to you: It has been amply disproved.
Andrew Dunford
"Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
<snip>
> Might have something to do with the largely uncontroversial fact that
> Sreesanth is a superior bowler compared to Brandes (and hence, less
> expected to lose control over a ball), and unlike Brandes, has a
> cultivated
> reputation for doing certain antics on the field.
I don't follow the logic. Eddo Brandes may not have been the world's
greatest bowler, but he was decent enough to take a hat trick against
England in an odo and also bowl Zimbabwe to victory over the same opponents
at the 1992 World Cup. More particularly, he was capable of putting the
ball in approximately the right spot again and again, as are most
international bowlers.
Sreesanth unquestionably has potential as an international bowler, but
judging by the inconsistency of his performance at Trent Bridge I would
guess he is more likely to lose control of the ball than a Brandes.
<snip>
Andrew
arahim
> "Geico Caveman" <spammers-go-h...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
>
> news:f9cu85$v7c$1...@aioe.org...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Might have something to do with the largely uncontroversial fact that
> > Sreesanth is a superior bowler compared to Brandes (and hence, less
> > expected to lose control over a ball), and unlike Brandes, has a
> > cultivated
> > reputation for doing certain antics on the field.
>
> I don't follow the logic. Eddo Brandes may not have been the world's
You are looking at the wrong person for it.
Phil.
> Phil. wrote:
> > As I've shown in this thread a new cricket ball bowled with a
> > horizontal velocity will decelerate initially at ~8m/sec^2 and it will
>
> Ermmm...you stated this.
>
> > accelerate downwards due to gravity at ~9.8 m/sec^2.
>
> > Phil.
>
> Then there's the wind to take into account; the fact that the ball may
> be moving laterally, too, depending on the way it's released; the
> direction of the seam; angular velocity in various planes; the direction
> of the slope(s) of the pitch; altitude; and surely the Coriolis effect
> will affect the ball differently depending on the hemisphere (q.v.
> flushing toilets).
>
>
> In short, as soon as the ball leaves the hand it slows down. Until, that
> is, Murali finds a way to convert the rotational speed of his turdra
> delivery into forward momentum with the wind behind him at the Basin
> Reserve.
>
> Dr HC.
Doctorate not in kinematics I see.
Phil.
Geico Caveman
>
> "Geico Caveman" <spammers...@spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:f9cu85$v7c$1...@aioe.org...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Might have something to do with the largely uncontroversial fact that
>> Sreesanth is a superior bowler compared to Brandes (and hence, less
>> expected to lose control over a ball), and unlike Brandes, has a
>> cultivated
>> reputation for doing certain antics on the field.
>
> I don't follow the logic. Eddo Brandes may not have been the world's
> greatest bowler, but he was decent enough to take a hat trick against
> England in an odo and also bowl Zimbabwe to victory over the same
> opponents
> at the 1992 World Cup. More particularly, he was capable of putting the
> ball in approximately the right spot again and again, as are most
> international bowlers.
However, at his pace and lack of much disguised variation, he usually got
sorted out by most batsmen. Some Indian bowlers in the past have had
isolated deeds that were important at the time, but that does not make them
superior bowlers.
>
> Sreesanth unquestionably has potential as an international bowler, but
> judging by the inconsistency of his performance at Trent Bridge I would
> guess he is more likely to lose control of the ball than a Brandes.
Lose control of his mind, more likely.
In his short career so far, Sreesanth has shown the ability to blast out
good batting sides (South Africa for instance) with his controlled pace
bowling. Eddo Brandes, throughout his career, never posed that kind of
menace, the occasional stumble by England notwithstanding.
It is a much easier task to control your release if you can manage sustained
efforts that Sreesanth has exhibited in recent past. Which makes it very
slightly more likely than it did in the case of Brandes, that this might
have been intentional (only a very small likelihood). The condition of the
ball at the time of the Pietersen beamer was also not one that would
generally be conducive to slipping out of a bowler's hands. All said and
done, I am talking about fractional differences in likelihoods, hence my
initial statement about the likelihood of the beamer being unintentional
(certain in the case of Brandes, and nearly certain in the case of
Sreesanth).
Eddo Brandes' deconstruction of England was an aberration in his largely
uneventful career. Sreesanth's lack of control at Trent Bridge is a similar
aberration (definitely on basis of his past performances, and hopefully so
in the future).
brianloa...@gmail.com
Haben Sie Probleme mit unbezahlten Rechnungen und wissen nicht, in welche Richtung oder wohin Sie sich wenden sollen? Was ist mit der Suche nach einer seriösen Schuldenkonsolidierungsfirma, die Ihnen dabei helfen kann, die monatliche Rate zu reduzieren, damit Sie günstige Rückzahlungsoptionen sowie genügend Zeit zum Atmen haben, wenn es um das Ende des Monats geht und Rechnungen bezahlt werden müssen? BRIAN CAPITAL LOANS ist die Antwort. Unsere Kredite sind für maximale Sicherheit gut versichert. Unser wichtigstes Ziel ist es, Ihnen zu helfen, die Dienstleistungen zu erhalten, die Sie verdienen um Ihre monatlichen Ausgaben zu entlasten. Kontaktieren Sie uns per Anruf / Text +1(209)643-7283 E-Mail brianloa...@gmail.com