White Australia loses the Ashes... AGAIN!
Jeff
No surprises there.
Clearly Cricket Ausfailure's racially exclusive policy of selecting only
white fellas to play for them ain't working any longer.
Perhaps a recall for Andrew Symonds is warranted, eh? Or is it only Aussies
of a darker-skinned complexion who are ever disciplined for behaving like
fair dinkum, ridgy didge, dinky die, true-blue, rusty Holden-Ute-owning,
pisshead ocker bogans?
--
Regards,
Eddie Gilbert.
Dick Boocky
LoL, poor Jeff.
Dave -Turner
news:7ffc8tF...@mid.individual.net...
> Had their collective arses handed to them again by Multicultural England.
Yes, congratulations must go to South Africa
Abubakr
> "Jeff" <jeff9011spa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ffc8tF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Had their collective arses handed to them again by Multicultural England.
>
> Yes, congratulations must go to South Africa
LOL.
Cut from the same cloth?
But seriously, I don't think, overall, that the non-anglos are into
cricket in sufficient numbers in Australia to break into the team
anyway. Law of averages and all that...
Bob Dubery
> Had their collective arses handed to them again by Multicultural England.
>
> No surprises there.
>
> Clearly Cricket Ausfailure's racially exclusive policy of selecting only
> white fellas to play for them ain't working any longer.
A) You seem rather pre-occupied with skin colour yourself
B) You're confusing "culture" with "colour"
C) You're talking bollocks.
higgs
>
> news:7ffc8tF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Had their collective arses handed to them again by Multicultural England.
>
> Yes, congratulations must go to South Africa
So you keep saying.
It might interest you to know that Matt Prior came to England when he
was 11, and has represented England at various junior levels. He's now
27, ie has spent more of his life in England than in SA. Does that
make him English or South African?
I dunno, but I reckon it makes him more naturalised than Clyde
Rathbone, who actually captained the U21 Springboks a year before
coming over to Australia (and represented them in Tests the following
year).
I've mentioned this to people before and have been told 'oh, he wanted
to come over here'.
So that makes it all fine and dandy, then?
And Prior didn't want to come to England?
Higgs
The Somewhat-rational Curator
You've shown your hand as a racist through you accusation that Australia
has a racist policy, Jeff. The fact that there are no "darkies" in the
team isn't racist. The fact that you are automatically critical that
there are no "darkies" in the team is.
Australia has had Symonds, and there was Jason Gillespie, of Aboriginal
descent, before that. If race was genuinely a factor, neither would
have ever been considered.
Who, of a dark-skinned variety, do you think Australia should have selected?
Dipak
Dave -Turner
news:bbd85c96-5b00-4419...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> So you keep saying.
Post me just one other instance that I've ever said it.
> I dunno, but I reckon it makes him more naturalised
> than Clyde Rathbone
Wow, I didn't realise Clyde Rathbone was such a prolific cricketer. So
that's your best comeback to me pointing out that half of the England
cricket team are from South Africa??? heh.
higgs
> "higgs" <kenhig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bbd85c96-5b00-4419...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > So you keep saying.
>
> Post me just one other instance that I've ever said it.
>
Why not scroll down half a dozen lines..........
> > I dunno, but I reckon it makes him more naturalised
> > than Clyde Rathbone
>
> Wow, I didn't realise Clyde Rathbone was such a prolific cricketer. So
> that's your best comeback to me pointing out that half of the England
> cricket team are from South Africa??? heh.
I didn't realise that you had ever pointed out that half the England
cricket team were from South Africa, but thanks for clearing that up
Higgs
Dave -Turner
Matthew Pope
news:7ffhq3F...@mid.individual.net:
Chris Lewis was unavailable...
The Somewhat-rational Curator
Which of the following Australian cricketers is Chris Lewis?
Lewis, A (Arthur Lewis, ?-1907)
Lewis, JW (John Lewis, 1867-1939)
Lewis, K (Keith Lewis, 1923- )
Lewis, KJ (Kevin Lewis, 1947- )
Lewis, LR (Lawrence Lewis, 1889-1947)
Lewis, ML (Mick Lewis, 1974- )
Lewis, OH (Oswald Lewis, 1833-1895)
Lewis, PM (Percy Lewis, 1864-1922)
Lewis, TH (Thomas Lewis, 1828-1901)
Based on age, Mick Lewis is the most likely candidate. Based on his
photo, probably not.
http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/player/6291.html
Please elaborate on exactly who this dark-skinned Chris Lewis is, who
conceivably could have been selected to play for Australia.
Dipak
Awesome Bro n Co
Excellent troll Jeff. One of your finest, Nigger.
Point of trivia for anyone silly enough to get worked up over this:
England and South Africa are the only two actively multicultural teams
in the world. England, because they couldn't muster the talent from
their native gene pool if they wanted, and South Africa, by law,
irrespective of talent.
New Zealand are the all-whites. All their darkies end up in jail
sooner or later, so that makes them a selection risk.
West Indies would never field a cracker, and they aren't real fussed
on subcontinental coloureds either.
As for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Never picked a
cracker or a coon. Never will.
Zimbabwe doesn't have a team. They were all executed by the Chocko who
runs the show.
AB
alvey
How's the tour going Jeff?
Notched 100 groups that you've made a dick of yourself on yet?
alvey
in Brix, off to fix the filter.
Matthew Pope
The pommy fella who went to jail for cocaine trafficking.
No real connection other than (a) played cricket and (b) he had dark
skin i believe.
Coxy
>
> No surprises there.
Yep.
And it all came down to 3 pivotal moments:
1. Mitchell Johnson's "bowling" in the first session of the Lords Test
2. England ripping through Australia in their first innings at Lords
3. England ripping through Australia in their first innings at the
Oval
For the rest of the series Australia was either competitive or
outplayed England.
So your subject heading is entirely accurate. Australia LOST the Ashes.
Here's Johnny
"Coxy" <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4d2cb13-dd9d-41e3...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Yep.
====
Cowardly Pommy time-wasting costing Australia a few more overs at Monty
Panesar in Cardiff. 5 lost sessions in the second Test. Significantly
negative rub of the green wrt poor umpiring calls.
Should have been 3-2 but for the weather and the unhealthy English aversion
to fair play.
Jellore
> "Coxy" <chris.d...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Another sore Australian loser.
Here's Johnny
"Jellore" <jel...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:400bcc2e-bf26-4ff9...@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Another sore Australian loser.
====
LOL. Don't address the validity of my comments, there's a good fellow.
Mike Gooding
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL yerself. How many more overs do you think you needed, given you'd
already had more than a dozen at one of the feeblest no. 11s since
Glenn McKnobend ?
The weather ? Were you and the Aus team shocked to discover we have
weather Here ? Like, Ohmygod.
Let's not get started on fair play, or we'll have to pull out the
photos of each other's team claiming bump balls.
England won because they took their chances, took fivefers when it
counted and scored hundreds when they were needed - i.e. Lord's 1st
innings, Oval 2nd - Aus scored 4 ultimately useless obnes in Cardiff
and another useless one at the Oval.
That Ponting's a good batsman, but.
Mike Gooding
--------------------
Here's Johnny
"Mike Gooding" <michael...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8a3ee32e-fc1e-4663...@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 1:37 pm, "Here's Johnny" <r...@tattat.net> wrote:
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > ====
> > Cowardly Pommy time-wasting costing Australia a few more overs at Monty
> > Panesar in Cardiff. 5 lost sessions in the second Test. Significantly
> > negative rub of the green wrt poor umpiring calls.
>
> > Should have been 3-2 but for the weather and the unhealthy English
> > aversion
> > to fair play.
>
> Another sore Australian loser.
>
> ====
> LOL. Don't address the validity of my comments, there's a good fellow.-
> Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL yerself. How many more overs do you think you needed, given you'd
already had more than a dozen at one of the feeblest no. 11s since
Glenn McKnobend ?
===
Perhaps a single ball would have sufficed. We'd know, had England not
unsportingly and obviously cheated Australia of the opportunity. BTW McGrath
has a Test fifty. Even outright bunnies have their day. We'll never know
whether Monty would have fairly batted out the day and been a real hero. All
we know is that Australia were denied every fair opportunity, and Monty the
opportunity to deserve a place in Ashes folklore, by deliberate England
cuntistry. That's fact, and a great pity.
===
The weather ? Were you and the Aus team shocked to discover we have
weather Here ? Like, Ohmygod.
===
I presume by "weather" you mean "anything other than fine weather".
Irrelevant. Those 5 sessions being rained out happened at precisely the
wrong moment for Australia, and much to England's benefit. We may not have
won that match but it was looking likely (notwithstanding Monty changing
gloves like OJ Simpson). It would have been enough to retain the Ashes,
which makes it highly relevant.
===
Let's not get started on fair play, or we'll have to pull out the
photos of each other's team claiming bump balls.
===
Mendacious of you. England deliberately stalling for time was cheating,
outright bastardry. I didn't see the "contentious" Australian catch, but the
England one clearly did not carry.
===
England won because they took their chances, took fivefers when it
counted and scored hundreds when they were needed - i.e. Lord's 1st
innings, Oval 2nd - Aus scored 4 ultimately useless obnes in Cardiff
and another useless one at the Oval.
===
England took their chances, and Australia did not contrive to deny them the
opportunity to do so. The "ultimately useless" Cardiff centuries set up a
lead which might have delivered a win, had English cheating not continually
interrupted and delayed Australia's attempts to dismiss the last batsman.
England won two games, lost one and was damned near to losing another two.
===
That Ponting's a good batsman, but.
===
Shit captain, though.
The great irony of all this is that I don't particularly give a shit. I am
not a Ponting fan and my favourite players have all retired. I'm certainly
not a sore loser.
I merely raised the pont that weather-affected match was one which looked
Australia's to win, and that England were sufficiently insecure to abandon
the spirit of the game in obvious time-wasting to deny the opposition a fair
crack, and that those two circumstances almost certainly saved them the
series. I'd have raised the same point had the roles been reversed, or had
the opposition been any other nation.
I don't understand how you profit from defending poor sportsmanship.
===
John Hall
<4a952675$0$28356$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
Here's Johnny <r...@tattat.net> writes:
>Cowardly Pommy time-wasting costing Australia a few more overs at Monty
>Panesar in Cardiff.
Most probably only one over. Two at the most.
> 5 lost sessions in the second Test.
Did you mean the Third Test at Edgbaston? That was more to Eng;land's
disadvantage that Australia's.
> Significantly negative rub of the green wrt poor umpiring calls.
The umpiring was poor, but over the five Tests I'm not sure that it
significantly benefited one side or the other.
>
>Should have been 3-2 but for the weather and the unhealthy English
>aversion to fair play.
Presumably you mean 3-2 to England, though it must be doubtful whether
they could have come back from 1-0 down. However it's even more doubtful
whether an extra over at Cardiff would have allowed Australia to win. If
a wicket had fallen, at best Australia would have needed 13 runs in one
over to win, with no one-day limitation on field settings. Of course, if
two extra overs had been possible, it could have been 13 runs in two
overs, but Anderson and Panesar didn't really look like getting out.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)
Sir Oswald P Wrong
I heard on Morning TV over here that Cricket Ausfailure is lobbying to
be allowed to bowl underarm again. Some cricketing nutjob was arguing
that if Ausfailure isn't allowed to cheat at sport they have no chance
of winning anything. And I agree with that 100%. It's the way they've
always won and it does seem unfair to expect them to win fair and
square all the time when clearly, they are not capable. It used to be
funny watching Ausfailure crow about hollow victories but now we just
have to settle at laughing at them whinging and bleating after their
repeated losses to better teams in pretty much every sport except
group sex with dirt bags in sh!thouses in grubby pubs and giving the
missus a black eye for letting the team gang bang her again. It's
boring.
- - -
You're in the Wrong newsgroup
Qu0ll
news:93bb95tpki8s7ohfk...@4ax.com...
I guess the Black Craps don't fall into the "better team" category.
--
And loving it,
-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
Qu0llS...@gmail.com
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]
John Hall
Sir Oswald P Wrong <ossie...@spamawayexposures.co.nz> writes:
>I heard on Morning TV over here that Cricket Ausfailure is lobbying to
>be allowed to bowl underarm again.
I thought that the law-makers overreacted when they banned all underarm
bowling as a result of the Trevor Chappell incident. It's only "grubs"
that prevent a batsman playing a normal cricket shot. It seems a shame
that a link with the early days of cricket was broken. (Though in the
earliest days of cricket, all bowling was underarm grubs, and the
introduction of "pitched" bowling was an innovation.)
eusebius
> In article <93bb95tpki8s7ohfki6ea9fo6hcofr3...@4ax.com>,
> Sir Oswald P Wrong <ossiepwr...@spamawayexposures.co.nz> writes:>I heard on Morning TV over here that Cricket Ausfailure is lobbying to
> >be allowed to bowl underarm again.
>
> <snip>
>
> I thought that the law-makers overreacted when they banned all underarm
> bowling as a result of the Trevor Chappell incident. It's only "grubs"
> that prevent a batsman playing a normal cricket shot. It seems a shame
> that a link with the early days of cricket was broken. (Though in the
> earliest days of cricket, all bowling was underarm grubs, and the
> introduction of "pitched" bowling was an innovation.)
> --
> John Hall
Yes, I don't see the problem with allowing the odd lob bowler plying
his craft...
Ralph
"Awesome Bro n Co" <awsom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:796f03f7-980d-469b...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
AB
______________________________________________________________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You still here cretin?
Here's Johnny
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8puvglBg...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article
> <4a952675$0$28356$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> Here's Johnny <r...@tattat.net> writes:
>>Cowardly Pommy time-wasting costing Australia a few more overs at Monty
>>Panesar in Cardiff.
>
> Most probably only one over. Two at the most.
Who cares? It was still cowardice, plain and simple, and as others have
already commented on Monty's usual lack of ability, it could have been
decisive. Moreover the interruptions gave him respite and broke up any
momentum the bowlers may have been building. You have no point.
>> 5 lost sessions in the second Test.
>
> Did you mean the Third Test at Edgbaston? That was more to Eng;land's
> disadvantage that Australia's.
I disagree. Australia hadn't started well but had been utterly unworried by
the England attack in the second innings. There was a healthy lead and
plenty of time to dismiss England's second innings. It may not have panned
out that way, but the momentum in the match had definitely swung to
Australia.
>> Significantly negative rub of the green wrt poor umpiring calls.
>
> The umpiring was poor, but over the five Tests I'm not sure that it
> significantly benefited one side or the other.
Your uncertainty is charming, but not very persuasive. I am sure Alvey or
others followed it more closely and can comment intelligently.
> Presumably you mean 3-2 to England, though it must be doubtful whether
> they could have come back from 1-0 down.
You presume incorrectly.
> However it's even more doubtful
> whether an extra over at Cardiff would have allowed Australia to win.
So now it's just one over?
> If
> a wicket had fallen, at best Australia would have needed 13 runs in one
> over to win, with no one-day limitation on field settings.
That is most ungracious of you. You're correct only in the sense that
England had successfully wasted enough time with their antics after the
eighth wicket fell to greatly reduce the amount of time and number of overs
available to play. The point is not the situation with a minute left in the
day, but how England got there.
Your position is akin to defending a boxer who dodges around the ring for
the entire final round to avoid a knockout. With the exception that the
boxer can't aid his attempt by dropping furniture in the way of hs pursuer.
> Of course, if
> two extra overs had been possible, it could have been 13 runs in two
> overs, but Anderson and Panesar didn't really look like getting out.
Seems very strange, then, that the England team saw fit to prevent Australia
bowling at them.
Jellore
> "John Hall" <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8puvglBg...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>
> > In article
> > <4a952675$0$28356$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
Get over it mate, the Australians lost fair and square out in the
middle.
Dave (SA)
Hopefully Zimbabwe will recover. Bob Mugabe is in hospital.
Won't be sending him a get well card
John Hall
<4a98696d$0$28410$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,>"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message news:8puvglBgWX
>lKF...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>> In article
>> <4a952675$0$28356$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
>> Here's Johnny <r...@tattat.net> writes:
>>>Cowardly Pommy time-wasting costing Australia a few more overs at Monty
>>>Panesar in Cardiff.
>>
>> Most probably only one over. Two at the most.
>
>Who cares? It was still cowardice, plain and simple, and as others have
>already commented on Monty's usual lack of ability, it could have been
>decisive. Moreover the interruptions gave him respite and broke up any
>momentum the bowlers may have been building. You have no point.
That momentum was not evident from the way that they were bowling. I do
wish that England hadn't wasted those few minutes by twice having new
gloves brought out, but as an England supporter I would naturally prefer
to think that it hadn't affected the result. At most it amounted to five
minutes in total, so there would have been at most two overs lost.
Whether they would have made the difference we will never know of
course.
I suspect that any other Test side would have also found ways to waste a
few minutes, which isn't to justify the practice. Someone pointed out
that Anderson and Panesar's inexperience meant that they didn't waste
time through "gardening" or having mid-pitch discussions, as more
experienced batsmen would certainly have done, and which would probably
have occasioned little comment.
Australia didn't help themselves, as my recollection is that earlier in
the day they were bowling their overs at their usual slow rate of 13 an
hour or so.
--
John Hall "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
"Well, actually, they're American."
"So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"
Here's Johnny
>>Who cares? It was still cowardice, plain and simple, and as others have
>>already commented on Monty's usual lack of ability, it could have been
>>decisive. Moreover the interruptions gave him respite and broke up any
>>momentum the bowlers may have been building. You have no point.
> <snip>
>
> That momentum was not evident from the way that they were bowling. I do
> wish that England hadn't wasted those few minutes by twice having new
> gloves brought out, but as an England supporter I would naturally prefer
> to think that it hadn't affected the result. At most it amounted to five
> minutes in total, so there would have been at most two overs lost.
> Whether they would have made the difference we will never know of
> course.
My point is pretty simple - it was shameful. It might not have affected the
outcome, but we'll never know.
>
> I suspect that any other Test side would have also found ways to waste a
> few minutes, which isn't to justify the practice. Someone pointed out
> that Anderson and Panesar's inexperience meant that they didn't waste
> time through "gardening" or having mid-pitch discussions, as more
> experienced batsmen would certainly have done, and which would probably
> have occasioned little comment.
>
> Australia didn't help themselves, as my recollection is that earlier in
> the day they were bowling their overs at their usual slow rate of 13 an
> hour or so.
Interesting if true, but irrelevant to England's conduct.
Here's Johnny
===
They lost, it is a matter of history and not something worth anyone working
themselves into a lather about, but it would be much nicer if the "fair and
square" part was true.
prakmel
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Seeing that the Aussie fans are getting really worked up over what
happened in this Test, will you confirm that you think the Aussie
players, if the position had been entirely reversed, would not have
used this or any other form of "time-wasting" to try and save the
match?
Phil.
> "John Hall" <nospam_no...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8puvglBg...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>
> > In article
> > <4a952675$0$28356$5a62a...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
> > Here's Johnny <r...@tattat.net> writes:
> >>Cowardly Pommy time-wasting costing Australia a few more overs at Monty
> >>Panesar in Cardiff.
>
> > Most probably only one over. Two at the most.
>
> Who cares? It was still cowardice, plain and simple, and as others have
> already commented on Monty's usual lack of ability, it could have been
> decisive. Moreover the interruptions gave him respite and broke up any
> momentum the bowlers may have been building. You have no point.
>
> >> 5 lost sessions in the second Test.
>
> > Did you mean the Third Test at Edgbaston? That was more to Eng;land's
> > disadvantage that Australia's.
>
> I disagree. Australia hadn't started well but had been utterly unworried by
> the England attack in the second innings. There was a healthy lead and
> plenty of time to dismiss England's second innings. It may not have panned
> out that way, but the momentum in the match had definitely swung to
> Australia.
The test where through England's sportsmanship Australia were allowed
to play a substitute wicketkeeper whereas they could have stuck to the
Laws of the game and made the Aussies play with only 10 fit batsmen
and no specialist keeper.
>
> >> Significantly negative rub of the green wrt poor umpiring calls.
>
> > The umpiring was poor, but over the five Tests I'm not sure that it
> > significantly benefited one side or the other.
>
> Your uncertainty is charming, but not very persuasive. I am sure Alvey or
> others followed it more closely and can comment intelligently.
Only if you apply the Aussie rule of not counting the bad calls that
go against the opposition, three England wickets falling to no balls
in the final Test for example.
>
> > Presumably you mean 3-2 to England, though it must be doubtful whether
> > they could have come back from 1-0 down.
>
> You presume incorrectly.
>
> > However it's even more doubtful
> > whether an extra over at Cardiff would have allowed Australia to win.
>
> So now it's just one over?
>
> > If
> > a wicket had fallen, at best Australia would have needed 13 runs in one
> > over to win, with no one-day limitation on field settings.
>
> That is most ungracious of you. You're correct only in the sense that
> England had successfully wasted enough time with their antics after the
> eighth wicket fell to greatly reduce the amount of time and number of overs
> available to play. The point is not the situation with a minute left in the
> day, but how England got there.
Aussie time wasting in the series amounted to far more than that.
Jellore
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
I see unable to accept defeat like a man.
Chris Parslow
m?
CP
Moby
> The test where through England's sportsmanship Australia were allowed
> to play a substitute wicketkeeper whereas they could have stuck to the
> Laws of the game and made the Aussies play with only 10 fit batsmen
> and no specialist keeper.
Point of order, Phil.
Australia hasn't played with a specialist keeper for any number of
years now.
Moby
Phil.
True but even Clang would be better than anyone of these surely:
SR Watson
SM Katich
RT Ponting*
MEK Hussey
MJ Clarke
MJ North
Have any of them ever played as wk?
Sir Oswald P Wrong
<prakm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 29, 6:31�pm, "Here's Johnny" <r...@tattat.net> wrote:
>> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > > Here's Johnny <r...@tattat.net> writes:
>> > >>Cowardly Pommy
trademark Johnbro blah blah blah
>>
>> > Who cares? It was still cowardice, plain and simple,
trademark Johnbro blah blah blah
>>>The point is not the situation with a minute left in
>> > the
>> > day, but how England got there.
>>
trademark Johnbro blah blah blah
>> > Your position is akin to defending a boxer who dodges around the ring for
>> > the entire final round to avoid a knockout.
trademark Johnbro blah blah blah
>>
>> ===
>> They lost, it is a matter of history and not something worth anyone working
>> themselves into a lather about, but it would be much nicer if the "fair and
>> square" part was true.
>
trademark Johnbro blah blah blah
>Seeing that the Aussie fans are getting really worked up over what
>happened in this Test, will you confirm that you think the Aussie
>players, if the position had been entirely reversed, would not have
>used this or any other form of "time-wasting" to try and save the
>match?
You cad! To suggest that Ausfailure would do commit a shameful
cowardly gutless yellow bellied scumbag pussy act in a game of cricket
is outragous.
Ausfailure has a proud record in this regard as this short video
proves
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOakENCC9ic
Sir Oswald P Wrong
There's a good reason for that. 'John' was recently discovered posing
as a female teen in a pink bikini on facebook using an identity he
stole from elsewhere. He/She had a lot of 'friends' mostly what he/she
described as horny arab men who were far more forward than he/she was.
When challenged about it he/she declared he/she was simply pretending
to be a teenage skank and cybering arab men as part of a study on
spam.
I think he/she may have meant sperm.
Here's Johnny
"prakmel" <prakm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b73e9a6b-bc00-4dbe...@u20g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
===
I don't speak on anyone's behalf. I can tell you that if Ponting had stooped
to that low, you'd have seen posts from me calling for his sacking, and more
of them than the few I've submitted about the Poms doing it.
Here's Johnny
===
I guess if I had been one of the players involved, "defeat" would be
applicable. Given I'm a spectator, it really isn't.
The first two words of the post to which you are replying is "they lost".
What is it exactly that I'm having trouble accepting?
Here's Johnny
"Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:ad319e9e-44a4-45a9...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
===
Pretty sure Hussey has.
===
Here's Johnny
===
Very nice of them. In a Test which lost 5 sessions, something of an empty
gesture, but nice nonetheless.
Greg Chappell had his nice moments, too. Should those invalidate criticism
for the underarm?
===
>
> >> Significantly negative rub of the green wrt poor umpiring calls.
>
> > The umpiring was poor, but over the five Tests I'm not sure that it
> > significantly benefited one side or the other.
>
> Your uncertainty is charming, but not very persuasive. I am sure Alvey or
> others followed it more closely and can comment intelligently.
Only if you apply the Aussie rule of not counting the bad calls that
go against the opposition, three England wickets falling to no balls
in the final Test for example.
===
That's not a substitute for intelligent commentary. You've just committed
the same sin, btw.
===
>
> > Presumably you mean 3-2 to England, though it must be doubtful whether
> > they could have come back from 1-0 down.
>
> You presume incorrectly.
>
> > However it's even more doubtful
> > whether an extra over at Cardiff would have allowed Australia to win.
>
> So now it's just one over?
>
> > If
> > a wicket had fallen, at best Australia would have needed 13 runs in one
> > over to win, with no one-day limitation on field settings.
>
> That is most ungracious of you. You're correct only in the sense that
> England had successfully wasted enough time with their antics after the
> eighth wicket fell to greatly reduce the amount of time and number of
> overs
> available to play. The point is not the situation with a minute left in
> the
> day, but how England got there.
Aussie time wasting in the series amounted to far more than that.
===
Don't, you know, bore us with, like, any details or anything.
===
>
> Your position is akin to defending a boxer who dodges around the ring for
> the entire final round to avoid a knockout. With the exception that the
> boxer can't aid his attempt by dropping furniture in the way of hs
> pursuer.
>
> > Of course, if
> > two extra overs had been possible, it could have been 13 runs in two
> > overs, but Anderson and Panesar didn't really look like getting out.
>
> Seems very strange, then, that the England team saw fit to prevent
> Australia
> bowling at them.
Hmm - no answer to this one. Not surprising.
viper
"Dick Boocky" <boocky...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b3d7e2f-8419-48e7...@i4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 24, 11:35 pm, "Jeff" <jeff9011spa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Had their collective arses handed to them again by Multicultural England.
>
> No surprises there.
>
> Clearly Cricket Ausfailure's racially exclusive policy of selecting only
> white fellas to play for them ain't working any longer.
>
> Perhaps a recall for Andrew Symonds is warranted, eh? Or is it only
> Aussies
> of a darker-skinned complexion who are ever disciplined for behaving like
> fair dinkum, ridgy didge, dinky die, true-blue, rusty Holden-Ute-owning,
> pisshead ocker bogans?
LoL, poor Jeff.
I thought Jeff's boarding house had been sold to Pakistanis ?
Viper
eusebius
Yes Clang would be. Your point being?
Jellore
What don't understand about the scoreline 2-1? Are you saying that it
is not defeat for Australia? Oh dear.
Qu0ll
>> I guess if I had been one of the players involved, "defeat" would be
>> applicable. Given I'm a spectator, it really isn't.
>>
>> The first two words of the post to which you are replying is "they lost".
>> What is it exactly that I'm having trouble accepting?
>
> What don't understand about the scoreline 2-1? Are you saying that it
> is not defeat for Australia? Oh dear.
You really have no idea do you? Read what Johnny wrote again and this time
try to comprehend it, particularly the bit:
"They lost, it is a matter of history"
--
Here's Johnny
"Qu0ll" <Qu0llS...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4aa0f254$0$28366$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Well said Qu0ll. I am having trouble understanding what he's having trouble
understanding.
mike
> Had their collective arses handed to them again by Multicultural England.
>
who from 'multicultural england' did well in the ashes?
bopara was the token non white and he didnt do
much at all.
mike