3 extra cock suckers playing for Australia - Benson,Bucknor, and the 3rd Umpire !
ark...@yahoo.com
Crains
> What a friggin Joke !!
Exactly, as a neutral this whole day has been a big freaking joke. India
has played the better cricket by far, and if not for incompetent umpires
Australia would be in big trouble.
Why doesn't the ICC penalise umpires for their incompetence? How can they
get away with this time and time again.
prakmel
> What a friggin Joke !!
Nothing new. Always happens when Australia is in trouble.
No wonder Aussies don't want technology.
Is there any code of conduct to prevent this daylight cheating by the
umpires?
Crains
Exactly, I've noticed quite a significant number of bad decisions being
made in favor of Australia over the years. As if the umpires are afraid
of them. Mark my word, all doubtful decisions against India will be given
out by the same jokers in this match.
prakmel
Agreed. Though to show their supposed neutrality, they will
deliberately make a couple of errors - usually for the lower order
batsmen.
And the Aussies can then claim that things even out.
Geico Caveman
> On Jan 2, 12:57 pm, Crains <no-re...@none.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:56:00 -0800, prakmel wrote:
>> > On Jan 2, 12:50 pm, ark...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >> What a friggin Joke !!
>>
>> > Nothing new. Always happens when Australia is in trouble.
>>
>> > No wonder Aussies don't want technology.
>>
>> > Is there any code of conduct to prevent this daylight cheating by the
>> > umpires?
>>
>> Exactly, I've noticed quite a significant number of bad decisions being
>> made in favor of Australia over the years. As if the umpires are afraid
>> of them. Mark my word, all doubtful decisions against India will be given
>> out by the same jokers in this match.
>
> Agreed. Though to show their supposed neutrality, they will
> deliberately make a couple of errors - usually for the lower order
> batsmen.
>
> And the Aussies can then claim that things even out.
If you include the vampire batsman score like I have suggested, it will put
an end to any such nonsense.
An umpire reprieving Ponting and then reprieving RP Singh in the same match
does NOT even things out.
Umpires' score against India so far = 38+36=74 runs so far. Percentage of
Aussie score = 27.9%.
Ian Galbraith
> On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:50:13 -0800, arkcto wrote:
>
>> What a friggin Joke !!
>
> Exactly, as a neutral this whole day has been a big freaking joke. India
> has played the better cricket by far, and if not for incompetent umpires
> Australia would be in big trouble.
They would still have been in big trouble if India hadn't sat back on
their laurels once Hogg came in. So Symonds was gifted a life, doesn't
explain why they can't get Hogg or even another chance off Symonds. If
Australia was 2 for 300 you'd have a complaint but you have no complaint
when after having the Australians 6 for 134 you can't press the advantage
despite the umpires.
--
"Read less, more TV" - House
Geico Caveman
That is like asking them to get 12-13 wickets instead of the required 10.
Get real. A reprieve to a top class player like Ponting and Symonds is
costly, and I do not care if you are West Indies with Marshall and Holding
in your ranks.
Ian Galbraith
> Ian Galbraith wrote:
[snip]
>> They would still have been in big trouble if India hadn't sat back on
>> their laurels once Hogg came in. So Symonds was gifted a life, doesn't
>> explain why they can't get Hogg or even another chance off Symonds. If
>> Australia was 2 for 300 you'd have a complaint but you have no complaint
>> when after having the Australians 6 for 134 you can't press the advantage
>> despite the umpires.
>>
>
> That is like asking them to get 12-13 wickets instead of the required 10.
> Get real.
You get real, having them 6 for 134 means they should have been able to,
they let Australia off the hook regardless of the umpires.
> A reprieve to a top class player like Ponting and Symonds is
> costly, and I do not care if you are West Indies with Marshall and Holding
> in your ranks.
Symonds who has only scored 1 century before today. He's a good batsman
but he plays with a lot of risk. And then there was Hogg.
--
"The world of art and culture is a vast commons, one that is salted
through with zones of utter commerce yet remains gloriously immune to any
overall commodification." - Jonathan Lethem
prakmel
wrote:
You are being far too kind. The total you have given is only for the
runs made by the batsmen who were out.
However, you ignore the runs made by the batsmen at the other end not
having to bat with tailenders as well as the increased confidence that
the remaining batsmen have with an improved scorecard.
Mark Shea
> Symonds who has only scored 1 century before today. He's a good batsman
> but he plays with a lot of risk. And then there was Hogg.
That's true. Symonds looked fairly uncomfortable until he reached
70, at which point he finally overtook Hogg.
Just quietly, a few of those balls really dug into the pitch and
leapt - Hogg's not done in this match, methinks.
Mark Shea
alvey
>
> However, you ignore the runs made by the batsmen at the other end not
> having to bat with tailenders as well as the increased confidence that
> the remaining batsmen have with an improved scorecard.
More rubbish Prakash.
There are no such thing as "tail-enders" when India is bowling.
alvey
Andrew Dunford
"alvey" <alvey_embarr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1txdfyvyqluad.8...@40tude.net...
Nonsense. The "tail-enders" can easily be identified as the blokes hitting
all the boundaries.
Andrew
nitekat01
thats the dumbest argument i have ever heard in my life!!!...if the
aussies were 2 for 300...etc
6 for 120...a batsmen is out TWICE and not given, that batsmen goes on
to hit a 100 and put the team in the strong position
i think theres a reasonable reason for complaint!
alvey
>
> i think theres a reasonable reason for complaint!
rsc should raise some revenue and charge for all this venting.
alvey
in briz, thinking there can't be much difference between Aust's total and
the number of Indian whinges.
gur...@yahoo.com
even accounting for few umpiring errors (that would always be in
sports), indians to let oz score from 133/6 to 370+/7 shows how
ineffective their bowling in less friendly conditions really is..
i would say that was downright pathetic.
kipps
Bucknor [the Niggerian] scored 120 runs for the Aussies??
Ian Galbraith
> On 2 Jan, 06:02, Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> They would still have been in big trouble if India hadn't sat back on
>> their laurels once Hogg came in. So Symonds was gifted a life, doesn't
>> explain why they can't get Hogg or even another chance off Symonds. If
>> Australia was 2 for 300 you'd have a complaint but you have no complaint
>> when after having the Australians 6 for 134 you can't press the advantage
>> despite the umpires.
> thats the dumbest argument i have ever heard in my life!!!...if the
> aussies were 2 for 300...etc
> 6 for 120...a batsmen is out TWICE and not given, that batsmen goes on
> to hit a 100 and put the team in the strong position
> i think theres a reasonable reason for complaint!
Bad decisions favoured Australia by only 2-1 (not counting LBWs), India
had Australia 6 for 134, no there's not really cause for the ranting that
has gone on in the newsgroup.
--
"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors
but “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” To this end,
copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but
encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed
by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate." - Jonathan
Lethem
nitekat01
before the series most indian supporters wondered whether we had the
ability to get 10 wickets let alone 20. So very insightful comment on
your part.
is your argument that if india were good enough to get symonds out 3
times they should have been good enough to get him out 4 times?
pontings dismissal, symonds edge and stumping were pretty
obvious...and are just the run of the "unlucky" decisions...
personally i think if it had been given india would have wrapped the
tail up pretty quick as they did in Melbourne. obviously well never
know.
eusebius
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 04:13:12 -0800 (PST), nitekat01 wrote:
> > On 2 Jan, 06:02, Ian Galbraith <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> They would still have been in big trouble if India hadn't sat back on
> >> their laurels once Hogg came in. So Symonds was gifted a life, doesn't
> >> explain why they can't get Hogg or even another chance off Symonds. If
> >> Australia was 2 for 300 you'd have a complaint but you have no complaint
> >> when after having the Australians 6 for 134 you can't press the advantage
> >> despite the umpires.
> > thats the dumbest argument i have ever heard in my life!!!...if the
> > aussies were 2 for 300...etc
> > 6 for 120...a batsmen is out TWICE and not given, that batsmen goes on
> > to hit a 100 and put the team in the strong position
> > i think theres a reasonable reason for complaint!
>
> Bad decisions favoured Australia by only 2-1 (not counting LBWs), India
> had Australia 6 for 134, no there's not really cause for the ranting that
> has gone on in the newsgroup.
Well, it was reasonably predictable that there would be such. Mind
you, considering Symonds charmed life. Why discount the lbws, also?
Certainly the missed snick by Bucknor was an absolute howler. I'd be
howling too, if I was desperately hoping for one team to win and the
opposition were gifted such an egregious error. The fact that Symonds
has only rubbed salt into the wound...would only rub salt into the
wound.
Bucknor needs to retire or stand down now.
Bring back Hair!!!And not the musical.
Rodney Ulyate
[...]
> Bring back Hair!!!And not the musical.
It's made a very successful return to South African theatres.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"Don't tell me his average or his top score at Trent Bridge. How many
runs, how many wickets, did he get against Yorkshire?"
Douglas Jardine
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Geico Caveman
>> If you include the vampire batsman score like I have suggested, it will
>> put an end to any such nonsense.
>>
>> An umpire reprieving Ponting and then reprieving RP Singh in the same
>> match does NOT even things out.
>>
>> Umpires' score against India so far = 38+36=74 runs so far. Percentage of
>> Aussie score = 27.9%.
>
> You are being far too kind. The total you have given is only for the
> runs made by the batsmen who were out.
Perhaps. But it is the only measureable thing. Once you have indisputable
numbers that no sane person can argue against, even if they are gross
underestimates according to some people, it shuts down any nonsense
spouting arguments.
This is also the reason I am ignoring any LBW decisions (except inside edges
resulting in wrongful dismissals of non-vampire batsmen). LBWs are mostly
subjective and can give rise to all kinds of arguments.
eusebius
asseverated:
> eusebiusyelled:
> [...]
>
> > Bring back Hair!!!And not the musical.
>
> It's made a very successful return to South African theatres.
>
> --
> Rodney Ulyate
Was baldness the norm hitherto?
Perhaps the norm is now nudeness.
Rodney Ulyate
violently that for about two minutes he could not continue:
> On Jan 4, 1:21 am, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com>
> asseverated:
>> eusebiusyelled:
>> [...]
>>> Bring back Hair!!!And not the musical.
>> It's made a very successful return to South African theatres.
> Was baldness the norm hitherto?
Actually, yes. It is apparently a tacit prerequisite for South African
thespians to have at the very least receding hairlines. I cannot
remember when last I went to the theatre without being dazzled by the glare.
> Perhaps the norm is now nudeness.
I sincerely hope so.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"I was given out 3 times when I was actually not out. At no time was I
given not out when I was actually out."
Wog George
Rodney Ulyate
> eusebius sniggered, completely muddled, and suddenly began coughing so
> violently that for about two minutes he could not continue:
Kudos to anyone who can tell me where that comes from.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"The definitive volume on the finest bloody fast bowler that ever drew
breath."
Fred Trueman, proposing a title for his autobiography
sdavmor
> I wrote:
>> eusebius sniggered, completely muddled, and suddenly began coughing so
>> violently that for about two minutes he could not continue:
>
> Kudos to anyone who can tell me where that comes from.
I'm going to guess a Sherlock Holmes case.
--
Cheers,
SDM -- a 21st century schizoid man
Systems Theory internet music project links:
official site <www.systemstheory.net>
MySpace MP3s <www.myspace.com/systemstheory>
CDBaby <www.cdbaby.com/systemstheory>
"Soundtracks For Imaginary Movies" CD released Dec 2004
"Codetalkers" CD coming Xmas 2007
NP: nothing
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> eusebius sniggered, completely muddled, and suddenly began coughing
>>> so violently that for about two minutes he could not continue:
>> Kudos to anyone who can tell me where that comes from.
> I'm going to guess a Sherlock Holmes case.
'Tsactually Fyodor Dostoyevsky's 1955 novel 'The Idiot'.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"27.4 Hogg to Styris, no run, huge shot up and over, right out of the
screws as they say 27.5 Hogg to Styris, SIX, defended"
A Cricinfo commentator
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> eusebius sniggered, completely muddled, and suddenly began coughing
>>> so violently that for about two minutes he could not continue:
>> Kudos to anyone who can tell me where that comes from.
> I'm going to guess a Sherlock Holmes case.
'Tsactually Fyodor Dostoyevsky's 1955 novel 'The Idiot'.
--
Rodney Ulyate
"27.4 Hogg to Styris, no run, huge shot up and over, right out of the
screws as they say 27.5 Hogg to Styris, SIX, defended"
A Cricinfo commentator
--