Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The pre- mortem was premature.
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Hague
Mar 26, 2013, 3:41:09 PM3/26/13
to
Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
terrific achievement.
Steve Hague
terrific achievement.
Steve Hague
Richard Dixon
Mar 27, 2013, 12:17:28 PM3/27/13
to
On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
> terrific achievement.
We can still have a good post-mortem of a lacklustre performance though. Would be nicer if we could put ourselves in with a chance of winning games rather than having to eke out a draw.
> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
> terrific achievement.
Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
Richard
Mike Holmans
Mar 27, 2013, 12:45:04 PM3/27/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
<richsdi...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
I have a feeling that there isn't all that much to explain.
Particularly after reading Athers in today's Times.
Nobody can say that England played well in the first half of T1 or for
most of the crucial bits of T3, though they did do well in T2. In
terms of non-performance, I thought the specialist batsmen were worse
than the bowlers. Only the keeper/batsman had a top series (and thank
heavens he did or we'd have lost pretty comprehensively). None of the
bowlers were actually bad, but they only occasionally showed anything
above competence. Trott was pretty consistent with the bat, and the
others weren't. Compton booked himself in as an opener for a good few
matches yet, Root kept his nose in front of Bairstow for the
up-and-comers position at 6. Cook, Bell, and KP all played one
substantial innings and spent the rest of their innings getting out
stupidly.
Atherton lists a number of possibly interesting questions about
switching between Giles and Flower, lack of preparation, thinking too
much about the Ashes and so on and so forth, but rather dismisses them
by pointing out that sportsmen are human beings and sometimes they
don't perform as well as they would like, that New Zealand played
exceptionally well as a team and were very well and aggressively led,
and that sport is one of the few arenas left in which the underdog can
honestly come out on top some of the time.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<richsdi...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Particularly after reading Athers in today's Times.
Nobody can say that England played well in the first half of T1 or for
most of the crucial bits of T3, though they did do well in T2. In
terms of non-performance, I thought the specialist batsmen were worse
than the bowlers. Only the keeper/batsman had a top series (and thank
heavens he did or we'd have lost pretty comprehensively). None of the
bowlers were actually bad, but they only occasionally showed anything
above competence. Trott was pretty consistent with the bat, and the
others weren't. Compton booked himself in as an opener for a good few
matches yet, Root kept his nose in front of Bairstow for the
up-and-comers position at 6. Cook, Bell, and KP all played one
substantial innings and spent the rest of their innings getting out
stupidly.
Atherton lists a number of possibly interesting questions about
switching between Giles and Flower, lack of preparation, thinking too
much about the Ashes and so on and so forth, but rather dismisses them
by pointing out that sportsmen are human beings and sometimes they
don't perform as well as they would like, that New Zealand played
exceptionally well as a team and were very well and aggressively led,
and that sport is one of the few arenas left in which the underdog can
honestly come out on top some of the time.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Richard Dixon
Mar 27, 2013, 1:23:27 PM3/27/13
to
On Wednesday, 27 March 2013 16:45:04 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> and that sport is one of the few arenas left in which the underdog can
> honestly come out on top some of the time.
For example just ask England's footballers when they travel to some Eastern European country with a population of about 1% of their home country...!
> and that sport is one of the few arenas left in which the underdog can
> honestly come out on top some of the time.
Richard
John Hall
Mar 27, 2013, 2:29:42 PM3/27/13
to
In article <01ea02b9-5dd9-48bf...@googlegroups.com>,
I realised today where England were going wrong. We should have played
Montenegro at cricket and New Zealand at football.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
Montenegro at cricket and New Zealand at football.
--
John Hall
"Madam, you have between your legs an instrument capable
of giving pleasure to thousands and all you can do is scratch it."
Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) to a lady cellist
David North
Mar 28, 2013, 9:50:57 AM3/28/13
to
"John Hall" <nospam...@jhall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:U9xU66AW...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
Cup, and finished ahead of Italy in their group.
--
David North
news:U9xU66AW...@jhall.demon.co.uk.invalid...
> In article <01ea02b9-5dd9-48bf...@googlegroups.com>,
> Richard Dixon <richsdi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Wednesday, 27 March 2013 16:45:04 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>>> and that sport is one of the few arenas left in which the underdog can
>>> honestly come out on top some of the time.
>>
>>For example just ask England's footballers when they travel to
>>some Eastern European country with a population of about 1% of
>>their home country...!
>
> I realised today where England were going wrong. We should have played
> Montenegro at cricket and New Zealand at football.
I'm not sure about the latter. New Zealand were unbeaten at the last World
> Richard Dixon <richsdi...@gmail.com> writes:
>>On Wednesday, 27 March 2013 16:45:04 UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
>>
>>> and that sport is one of the few arenas left in which the underdog can
>>> honestly come out on top some of the time.
>>
>>For example just ask England's footballers when they travel to
>>some Eastern European country with a population of about 1% of
>>their home country...!
>
> I realised today where England were going wrong. We should have played
> Montenegro at cricket and New Zealand at football.
Cup, and finished ahead of Italy in their group.
--
David North
mike
Mar 28, 2013, 11:19:13 AM3/28/13
to
On Mar 27, 4:17 pm, Richard Dixon <richsdixon1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
> > Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
> > terrific achievement.
> >
> On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
> > Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
> > terrific achievement.
> >
> Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
>
> Richard
were they using the kookabura ball in this series? i seem to
>
> Richard
remember that england had problems getting this to swing
before.
mike
Mal
Mar 28, 2013, 1:29:24 PM3/28/13
to
"mike" wrote in message
news:fd203858-65fc-4c44...@c6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
case but, luckily, Finn & Broad made way for Bresnan & Tremlett who did move
it. Suspect they worked really hard that tour to master the Kooka but didn't
this time assuming it would come back. The difference in the ability to
swing and seam was weird really.
Mad Hamish
Mar 28, 2013, 6:53:41 PM3/28/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
Southee had significantly different seam position when they were
bowling. Anderson was pointing the seam to or wide of 3rd slip while
Southee had it probably fine of second slip.
It might be that the different balls require different seam positions
and Anderson didn't adjust.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Unknown
Mar 28, 2013, 7:07:57 PM3/28/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:53:41 +1100, Mad Hamish
<newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
><richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
>>> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
>>> terrific achievement.
>>
>>We can still have a good post-mortem of a lacklustre performance though. Would be nicer if we could put ourselves in with a chance of winning games rather than having to eke out a draw.
>>
>>Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
>>
>One of the things that the coverage I saw showed was that Anderson and
>Southee had significantly different seam position when they were
>bowling. Anderson was pointing the seam to or wide of 3rd slip while
>Southee had it probably fine of second slip.
>It might be that the different balls require different seam positions
Away swing, seam aimed at 2nd slip, edge of thumb underneath. That's
<newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
><richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
>>> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
>>> terrific achievement.
>>
>>We can still have a good post-mortem of a lacklustre performance though. Would be nicer if we could put ourselves in with a chance of winning games rather than having to eke out a draw.
>>
>>Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
>>
>One of the things that the coverage I saw showed was that Anderson and
>Southee had significantly different seam position when they were
>bowling. Anderson was pointing the seam to or wide of 3rd slip while
>Southee had it probably fine of second slip.
>It might be that the different balls require different seam positions
schoolboy basics.
max.it
Mad Hamish
Mar 30, 2013, 8:13:17 PM3/30/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:07:57 GMT, (max.it) wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:53:41 +1100, Mad Hamish
><newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
>><richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
>>>> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
>>>> terrific achievement.
>>>
>>>We can still have a good post-mortem of a lacklustre performance though. Would be nicer if we could put ourselves in with a chance of winning games rather than having to eke out a draw.
>>>
>>>Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
>>>
>>One of the things that the coverage I saw showed was that Anderson and
>>Southee had significantly different seam position when they were
>>bowling. Anderson was pointing the seam to or wide of 3rd slip while
>>Southee had it probably fine of second slip.
>>It might be that the different balls require different seam positions
>
>Away swing, seam aimed at 2nd slip, edge of thumb underneath. That's
>schoolboy basics.
>
So's Newtonian physics, but it's not the complete story.
>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:53:41 +1100, Mad Hamish
><newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
>><richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
>>>> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
>>>> terrific achievement.
>>>
>>>We can still have a good post-mortem of a lacklustre performance though. Would be nicer if we could put ourselves in with a chance of winning games rather than having to eke out a draw.
>>>
>>>Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
>>>
>>One of the things that the coverage I saw showed was that Anderson and
>>Southee had significantly different seam position when they were
>>bowling. Anderson was pointing the seam to or wide of 3rd slip while
>>Southee had it probably fine of second slip.
>>It might be that the different balls require different seam positions
>
>Away swing, seam aimed at 2nd slip, edge of thumb underneath. That's
>schoolboy basics.
>
When one of the top couple of swing bowlers in the world isn't getting
the ball to swing and the other side is you've got to think that
there's something different about it.
Unknown
Mar 30, 2013, 8:54:32 PM3/30/13
to
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:13:17 +1100, Mad Hamish
swing if he's do'in it.
Think about this,comms go on about 'shape', shaped nicely, shaping the
ball in or away. Anderson for sure is guilty of over actioning his own
action, but that nip backer he bowls is pure class.
max.it
<newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:07:57 GMT, (max.it) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:53:41 +1100, Mad Hamish
>><newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
>>><richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
>>>>> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
>>>>> terrific achievement.
>>>>
>>>>We can still have a good post-mortem of a lacklustre performance though. Would be nicer if we could put ourselves in with a chance of winning games rather than having to eke out a draw.
>>>>
>>>>Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
>>>>
>>>One of the things that the coverage I saw showed was that Anderson and
>>>Southee had significantly different seam position when they were
>>>bowling. Anderson was pointing the seam to or wide of 3rd slip while
>>>Southee had it probably fine of second slip.
>>>It might be that the different balls require different seam positions
>>
>>Away swing, seam aimed at 2nd slip, edge of thumb underneath. That's
>>schoolboy basics.
>>
>
>So's Newtonian physics, but it's not the complete story.
>
>When one of the top couple of swing bowlers in the world isn't getting
>the ball to swing and the other side is you've got to think that
>there's something different about it.
Yea, even if the bowler is bowling poor lines the ball should still
>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 23:07:57 GMT, (max.it) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:53:41 +1100, Mad Hamish
>><newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:17:28 -0700 (PDT), Richard Dixon
>>><richsdi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, 26 March 2013 19:41:09 UTC, Steve Hague wrote:
>>>>> Well done Matt Prior. How often has he saved our donkeys in recent times? A
>>>>> terrific achievement.
>>>>
>>>>We can still have a good post-mortem of a lacklustre performance though. Would be nicer if we could put ourselves in with a chance of winning games rather than having to eke out a draw.
>>>>
>>>>Baffles me how we didn't swing the ball but they did. I read somewhere (was it on here) that one theory is that Cook is no longer ball-shine-wallah!
>>>>
>>>One of the things that the coverage I saw showed was that Anderson and
>>>Southee had significantly different seam position when they were
>>>bowling. Anderson was pointing the seam to or wide of 3rd slip while
>>>Southee had it probably fine of second slip.
>>>It might be that the different balls require different seam positions
>>
>>Away swing, seam aimed at 2nd slip, edge of thumb underneath. That's
>>schoolboy basics.
>>
>
>So's Newtonian physics, but it's not the complete story.
>
>When one of the top couple of swing bowlers in the world isn't getting
>the ball to swing and the other side is you've got to think that
>there's something different about it.
swing if he's do'in it.
Think about this,comms go on about 'shape', shaped nicely, shaping the
ball in or away. Anderson for sure is guilty of over actioning his own
action, but that nip backer he bowls is pure class.
max.it
0 new messages