It's on the radio now. I'd be listening if I cared.James Robinson wrote:Is anyone watching India v England
I'm reading something about a media blackout............
Cricket
Moderator: Jon O'Neill
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
Butt guilty on both counts. Asif guilty on the lesser count and the jury has been sent out again on the other.
Result.
Edit: Asif now found guilty on the second count. Amir pleaded guilty to both counts back in September.
Just need to see prison sentences now. Made my week this. Their 5 year bans (ie the bare minimum, and the muppets were going on about giving them even less than that) were pathetic.
Result.
Edit: Asif now found guilty on the second count. Amir pleaded guilty to both counts back in September.
Just need to see prison sentences now. Made my week this. Their 5 year bans (ie the bare minimum, and the muppets were going on about giving them even less than that) were pathetic.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
How the fuck does sending them to prison help anyone here? Is it any wonder that the prison system is overcrowded if we seriously give consideration to imprisoning people for cheating in a fucking game of cricket? Fine them all their assets and a percentage of their future earnings, or make them do something useful for society, anything. A custodial sentence is just ludicrous.Craig Beevers wrote:Edit: Asif now found guilty on the second count. Amir pleaded guilty to both counts back in September.
Just need to see prison sentences now. Made my week this.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
I haven't really been following this (because it's, you know, cricket) but presumably it's not so much cheating in the game of cricket as it is taking bribes and stuff. I wouldn't call deliberately fucking up cheating anyway. That's not a statement that I agree with a custodial sentence though.JimBentley wrote:How the fuck does sending them to prison help anyone here? Is it any wonder that the prison system is overcrowded if we seriously give consideration to imprisoning people for cheating in a fucking game of cricket? Fine them all their assets and a percentage of their future earnings, or make them do something useful for society, anything. A custodial sentence is just ludicrous.Craig Beevers wrote:Edit: Asif now found guilty on the second count. Amir pleaded guilty to both counts back in September.
Just need to see prison sentences now. Made my week this.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Cricket
As Martin Brundle said at the Grand Prix last weekend:JimBentley wrote:How the fuck does sending them to prison help anyone here? Is it any wonder that the prison system is overcrowded if we seriously give consideration to imprisoning people for cheating in a fucking game of cricket? Fine them all their assets and a percentage of their future earnings, or make them do something useful for society, anything. A custodial sentence is just ludicrous.Craig Beevers wrote:Edit: Asif now found guilty on the second count. Amir pleaded guilty to both counts back in September.
Just need to see prison sentences now. Made my week this.
You've got to have rules, otherwise it would be anarchy. It's the same with football. I mean, a lot of you send me tweets saying "Why is Lewis Hamilton punished so much?" and "Why are the stewards unjust?" It's the same with re-offending. But you have to have rules. Jump the start. Speed through the pits. It just doesn't make sense.
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1785
- Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
- Location: Dublin
Re: Cricket
Yes, you need rules, but they have to make sense. Years ago it was against the rules to write with your left hand in school. Anyway no one is saying they shouldn't be punished for breaking the rules, just that maybe, they don't have to be sent to prison. What will that achieve? Surely a lifetime ban from professional cricket would suffice.Rhys Benjamin wrote:You've got to have rules, otherwise it would be anarchy.
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
The two charges were conspiracy to cheat and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments. If you did the latter in any walk of life you'd be facing prison time - that charge comes with a maximum 7 year prison sentence.
These three have damaged the image of cricket. They've cheated spectators, fans and other players. What they've done is very serious and deserves a custodial sentence. It also sets out the right message to others thinking of doing it. Those are two good reasons right there.
These three have damaged the image of cricket. They've cheated spectators, fans and other players. What they've done is very serious and deserves a custodial sentence. It also sets out the right message to others thinking of doing it. Those are two good reasons right there.
- Clive Brooker
- Devotee
- Posts: 505
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
- Location: San Toy
Re: Cricket
Like others who've commented, I haven't been following this, so I've had to do a bit of skim-reading. The comment above (like dozens I've read in news articles) appears to link the "cheating" conviction with cheating at cricket. As far as I can tell, the three have been convincted for conspiracy to cheat (at gambling) and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments. Wrongdoing at cricket doesn't come into it. On both counts, the injured party is that noble institution, the Indian/Pakistani bookmaking industry. I suppose fraud is fraud, whatever one's opinion of those being defrauded.Craig Beevers wrote:They've cheated spectators, fans and other players. What they've done is very serious and deserves a custodial sentence.
I also find it curious that despite practically everyone accepting that the three are completely in the wrong, the case divides opinion as it does. Some regard it as a great day for cricket, others as a tragedy.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
My point is nothing to do with whether they were convicted of cheating, or conspiring to cheat, or defrauding or conspiring to defraud, or whatever. It's that prison isn't an appropriate punishment for this type of crime. Maybe I'm taking a simplistic view but I can't see how locking them up (at the expense of the taxpayer) helps anyone.
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
Err so for what crimes is it appropriate to lock someone up. Obviously you're wiping out fraud, cheating or any sort of monetary gain. That wipes out most of them.JimBentley wrote:My point is nothing to do with whether they were convicted of cheating, or conspiring to cheat, or defrauding or conspiring to defraud, or whatever. It's that prison isn't an appropriate punishment for this type of crime. Maybe I'm taking a simplistic view but I can't see how locking them up (at the expense of the taxpayer) helps anyone.
- JimBentley
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2820
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
Well, broadly speaking, violent crimes.Craig Beevers wrote:Err so for what crimes is it appropriate to lock someone up.
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
Re: Cricket
So, that rules out burglary, theft, blackmail, forgery, counterfeiting, smuggling, human trafficking and drug dealing as well?JimBentley wrote:Well, broadly speaking, violent crimes.Craig Beevers wrote:Err so for what crimes is it appropriate to lock someone up.
Re: Cricket
And the gentle kind of rape.Liam Tiernan wrote:So, that rules out burglary, theft, blackmail, forgery, counterfeiting, smuggling, human trafficking and drug dealing as well?JimBentley wrote:Well, broadly speaking, violent crimes.Craig Beevers wrote:Err so for what crimes is it appropriate to lock someone up.
(btw I've emboldened all the ones in your list where violence is likely prevalent, even if not in every individual case, and at the very least the threat of violence is almost certainly present. I could've probably done blackmail and smuggling too, but they're quite broad.)
- Andy Wilson
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm
Re: Cricket
They've all been given jail time as it happens. http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/no ... al-verdict
- Andy Wilson
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:09 pm
Re: Cricket
Bet John Higgins feels lucky today.
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
Rather awesome match going on in South Africa right now...
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-afric ... 14029.html
http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-afric ... 14029.html
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Cricket
Wow.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Cricket
Second test was a stunner as well... shame it's only a series of two.
- Craig Beevers
- Series 57 Champion
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
Yep these short Test series are a travesty. South Africa get horrendous attendances for Test cricket, I'm not sure why really.
When South Africa tour England there are only going to be 3 Tests, despite there being an agreement about how their future series were going to be 5 Tests.
When South Africa tour England there are only going to be 3 Tests, despite there being an agreement about how their future series were going to be 5 Tests.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Cricket
Is this rare?
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:12 pm
- Location: Kildare, Rep. of Ireland
- Michael Wallace
- Racoonteur
- Posts: 5458
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:01 am
- Location: London
Re: Cricket
Brilliant, cheers for thatLiam Tiernan wrote:How the Dutch see cricket.
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Cricket
Right, so, this Ben Stokes dismissal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLepo01Vf5k
You can make an argument like the one in the video's comments....
Seems like an excessive deferrence to the technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLepo01Vf5k
You can make an argument like the one in the video's comments....
...but only if you watch in slow motion. At full speed, dude stuck his arm out because someone threw a ball at his face. That's what I'd do too.he more you look at it, you will find ben stokes more guilty.
The fact is he was trying to block the ball as a reflex action to avoid hitting him, then he realised that the ball is at a fair distance from his body, but that was too late and he blocked the ball.
Technically, it's an obstructing the field. And I think it's the right decision
Seems like an excessive deferrence to the technology.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Cricket
I agree that it looks worse in slow motion. But in fast motion it's clearly out for me. If you're protecting your face then your hand stays in front of your face. He's made an instinctive reaction to defend the wicket. Out.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
Does this game have different rules for whether you watch it in slow motion or normal speed? I doubt it. Apply the rules (whatever they are and no, I haven't watched the video either - in any speed). Done.
Edit - Actually I've just watched it in 3/8 speed. Shit. Totally changed my mind on everything. Only works at that exact speed though.
Edit - Actually I've just watched it in 3/8 speed. Shit. Totally changed my mind on everything. Only works at that exact speed though.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Cricket
I'm glad you agree with me, Mark, and everyone else. Thanks for your input.Gavin Chipper wrote:Does this game have different rules for whether you watch it in slow motion or normal speed? I doubt it. Apply the rules (whatever they are and no, I haven't watched the video either - in any speed). Done.
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Cricket
I don't really know anything about cricket but I know this is good.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
Neither do I so we might be being taken for fools by inferring from the video that there is a rule that you can't take the ball beyond the boundary after you've caught it.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:39 pm I don't really know anything about cricket but I know this is good.
So it might be really good. But is it?
- Graeme Cole
- Series 65 Champion
- Posts: 2041
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm
Re: Cricket
Yes. A catch is complete when the fielder has complete control over the ball and over their own movement. A boundary is scored when the ball touches the boundary or the ground beyond it, and once that happens the ball is out of play and can't be caught. If the ball touches a fielder while they are touching the boundary or the ground beyond it, it counts as a boundary. See law 33 of the laws of cricket.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:50 pmNeither do I so we might be being taken for fools by inferring from the video that there is a rule that you can't take the ball beyond the boundary after you've caught it.Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:39 pm I don't really know anything about cricket but I know this is good.
So it might be really good. But is it?
What you see here is a skilful series of acrobatics to complete the catch without the ball going out of play. If she'd touched the ground beyond the boundary at the same time as touching the ball at any point, the catch wouldn't have counted.
Stephen Fry explains this better in a video.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
Interesting. Thanks for that. I now know a bit more about a game I know basically nothing about.
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Cricket
I thought it was a great start to The Hundred. Loads of novel stuff, some good some bad...
- Helmet cam - great
- Graphics style - I liked them. A lot of people on Twitter did not.
- Runs on left of screen, balls on right. They float upwards as the first innings progresses and downwards as the second innings progresses - I love this. What a great idea.
- Win predictor - good
- 5 ball "overs" where bowlers can stay on consecutively - excellent, although not sure about the umpire flashing the card to show the end of an over
- 10 balls before each switch of end - great, adds to or at least modifies the tactics a bit
- City-based competition like the IPL - big thumbs-up from me
- Kits - I love them
- Women and men's games given pretty equal billing - great
- Family atmosphere - seemed to be a huge success from what I've heard from some semi-cricket fans who were there
- Music at half time - a good idea but it was a bit naff this time around
Moreover, the standard was very good and it was, for all intents and purposes, a T20, so it is the game we know and love.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Cricket
This is what a lot of people, myself included, have an issue with. By having eight teams, six of whom don't normally sell out their T20s anyway (and why would you go and watch Birmingham Phoenix if you're not watching Birmingham Bears?), the ECB have given a massive two fingers to the other 10 counties, including the champions of the T20 Blast for 3 of the last 5 years (Northamptonshire, Worcestershire, Essex). There are a million ways you can address the perceived problems that the ECB have alleged are there, but nobbling 10 counties by stealth isn't really the right way to go. Force counties to merge; rip the whole system up and start again; divisions for the Blast... the alternative solutions are endless. I'm not saying these counties need to survive for the sake of it (as many are saying), merely that if you want to kill some counties then actually swing the axe rather than leave them out in the desert to starve.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 2:26 pm- City-based competition like the IPL - big thumbs-up from me
The ECB have admitted the Hundred is a loss-making exercise for now and will not turn a profit until 2023. Given that a combination of Covid and the Hundred's costs ate the ECB's reserves up, supporters of some of the counties who are barely solvent despite on-field success (Norhants eg) are understandably livid.
My "solution"? If they put even 20% of the Hundred's marketing and advertising into the Blast, you wouldn't need a new competition. Throw in a free-to-air deal and there would be nothing wrong with the Blast.
And let's not even get started on scheduling.
In fairness, George Dobell argues these points a lot better than I do: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/the- ... me-1269911
Edit: Further reading for you...
- Dobell's written evidence to the DCMS committee before Graves and Harrison's laughably bad appearance: http://data.parliament.uk/writteneviden ... 106274.pdf
- James Morgan's review of said appearance: https://www.thefulltoss.com/england-cri ... committee/
(The on-field cricket was never, ever going to be the issue. But the graphics were horrible. I shouldn't really have to look in four separate corners of the screen to see it's 100-2, needing 60 from 35.)
- Jon O'Neill
- Ginger Ninja
- Posts: 4551
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:45 am
- Location: London, UK
Re: Cricket
You don't really need to read anything to see the state of the game now. The position of the towers (and the arrows on them) give you the bare information absolutely instantly, which is the genius of it. You'll get used to the rest.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:30 pm (The on-field cricket was never, ever going to be the issue. But the graphics were horrible. I shouldn't really have to look in four separate corners of the screen to see it's 100-2, needing 60 from 35.)
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
I watched coverage yesterday, I never even noticed these nuances, I just noticed the clunkiness of the separation of the information. Took me long enough to work out who was bowling and who was on strike, but that was more to do with the frenetic editing of the highlights.Jon O'Neill wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:01 amYou don't really need to read anything to see the state of the game now. The position of the towers (and the arrows on them) give you the bare information absolutely instantly, which is the genius of it. You'll get used to the rest.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:30 pm (The on-field cricket was never, ever going to be the issue. But the graphics were horrible. I shouldn't really have to look in four separate corners of the screen to see it's 100-2, needing 60 from 35.)
It commits the sin of destroying much of the common usability and expectation of experienced users; if that's intentional, then fine - grab your new audience and we'll try to catch up.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Kiloposter
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
- Location: Harlow
Re: Cricket
I've found that the graphics go to the extremes of the screen, so the first digits of the scores and last of balls and wickets aren't visible, so they're useless for telling me the state of play
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Cricket
Many modern TVs are slightly zoomed in to avoid inconsistencies with picture signals. It took me over a year to work out this was the case on my TV (Settings | Screen | Display Area).
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
I was speaking to a friend, and apparently for an English cricket fan, winning the Ashes is a bigger deal than the World Cup. So you have this tournament that happens once every two years, against just one other team - an irrelevant grudge match in the general scheme of things rather than some sort of pinnacle of sporting excellence - and it's more important than this once-every-four-years tournament against all of the countries, which England has only ever won once. Was that not a bigger deal than winning the ashes for the 433rd time?
Part of the explanation is that the world cup is one-day cricket, which isn't the main thing, and the Ashes is test cricket (over multiple days and best of 5), which is the main thing. So I came up with this hypothetical long-drawn-out tournament of test cricket with all the countries that happens maybe once every 10 years and takes a whole year to complete (the test cricket world cup), but apparently that still wouldn't cut it.
Part of the explanation is that the world cup is one-day cricket, which isn't the main thing, and the Ashes is test cricket (over multiple days and best of 5), which is the main thing. So I came up with this hypothetical long-drawn-out tournament of test cricket with all the countries that happens maybe once every 10 years and takes a whole year to complete (the test cricket world cup), but apparently that still wouldn't cut it.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Cricket
The Ashes is a best-of-five series, whereas a tournament would be a series of one-offs where the best team may just have a bad day at the office. They have just started a World Test Championship, which was won by New Zealand this year, but for English fans that feels a bit naff anyway.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
But which is more important to you - The Ashes or the World Cup?Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:40 pm The Ashes is a best-of-five series, whereas a tournament would be a series of one-offs where the best team may just have a bad day at the office. They have just started a World Test Championship, which was won by New Zealand this year, but for English fans that feels a bit naff anyway.
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
Speak for yourself, I quite like the idea.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Mon Sep 06, 2021 11:40 pm The Ashes is a best-of-five series, whereas a tournament would be a series of one-offs where the best team may just have a bad day at the office. They have just started a World Test Championship, which was won by New Zealand this year, but for English fans that feels a bit naff anyway.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 9:06 pm
Re: Cricket
I like the idea too, although the format is weak. With 9 teams, having 8 best of 3 series (4 home, 4 away) each seems to be the obvious route, which would take about two years.
But for some reason we've got each team playing 6 opponents, so certain teams get advantages there (for example West Indies avoid the two 2021 finalists) and then all manner of series lengths from 2 to 5, with England playing 22 Tests over the cycle and 5 teams playing 12 or 13 each. Kinda implies the ICC perceive the Ashes and Pataudi Trophy far above having a global competition.
And personally celebrated the World Cup win much more than any Ashes series win, which may just be because it was the first win and the fact it was possibly the closest ODI of all time!
But for some reason we've got each team playing 6 opponents, so certain teams get advantages there (for example West Indies avoid the two 2021 finalists) and then all manner of series lengths from 2 to 5, with England playing 22 Tests over the cycle and 5 teams playing 12 or 13 each. Kinda implies the ICC perceive the Ashes and Pataudi Trophy far above having a global competition.
And personally celebrated the World Cup win much more than any Ashes series win, which may just be because it was the first win and the fact it was possibly the closest ODI of all time!
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Cricket
I didn't say I dislike the idea - just that 90% of England fans do.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Cricket
I think the huge time it takes to get to a conclusion (years) makes it less attractive than say, a host venue, preferably somewhere with predictable summers and have knock out tests or groups ala the world cup.
If they build it people would come
If they build it people would come
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
I don't know anything about cricket but I'm sure this works and that Rhys will enjoy it - imagine if there was a Max Buttler.
- Rhys Benjamin
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Re: Cricket
Yes, very good.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the whole Azeem Rafiq case here. Indeed, I think it's more of a story than the Owen Paterson stuff.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the whole Azeem Rafiq case here. Indeed, I think it's more of a story than the Owen Paterson stuff.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Cricket
It certainly has ruffled some feathers in Yorkshire.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:48 am Yes, very good.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the whole Azeem Rafiq case here. Indeed, I think it's more of a story than the Owen Paterson stuff.
The County cricket hierarchy have always had some dubious members.
If i remember correctly Yorkshire was the last county to allow overseas players in their team.
That said I still do not know if what was said.
I assumed it was the P word
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Ian Volante
- Postmaster General
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Re: Cricket
Well you would, but a sports club in turmoil compared to high-level government corruption really doesn't cut it.Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Nov 05, 2021 11:48 am Yes, very good.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the whole Azeem Rafiq case here. Indeed, I think it's more of a story than the Owen Paterson stuff.
As for this whole Yorkshire thing, it's quite impressive how many people I see defending the right to banter. I suspect they need a crash course in understanding what bullying is.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
Shane Warne's death brought me here. I don't follow cricket at all (as I've probably mentioned above), but I remember it often being said that Shane Warne was the world's best bowler. But in this article, it says:
Edit - Well it's possible I have heard the name but forgotten it. I do seem to remember there being some controversy about some guy's bowling style, which was likely him. Also I wonder how much of his success was down to his freakish bendy arm rather than skill as such, if you think you can reasonably separate these things.
Never heard of him. I looked him up, thinking he might have been from the 1920s or something, but he was born in 1972, so the same era as Warne. In his Wikipedia article it says:Warne took 708 Test wickets, the second most of all time, in 145 matches across a stellar 15-year international career.
...
Only Sri Lankan off-spinning great Muttiah Muralitharan, with 800 dismissals, has taken more Test wickets than Warne.
And yet Shane Warne is a household name and Muttiah Muralitharan not. That's a shame.Murali is regarded the greatest and most successful bowler to ever play international cricket.
Edit - Well it's possible I have heard the name but forgotten it. I do seem to remember there being some controversy about some guy's bowling style, which was likely him. Also I wonder how much of his success was down to his freakish bendy arm rather than skill as such, if you think you can reasonably separate these things.
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Cricket
"I don't follow cricket but I looked at hardly anything and formed some opinions." Good work, glad you're here.
As for why Shane Warne was more of a household name in this country that Murali, it might be because he played 36 tests against England compared to 16 for Murali, and 22 on English soil as opposed to 6 for Murali. Of the 22, Warne's Australian team won 12; of Murali's 6, Sri Lanka won only 2. Warne took 195 English test wickets, Murali took 112. Put simply, Warne owned us more than Murali did.
Furthermore, since I have no doubt you are very sincere in your desire to learn about this, just as I'm sure you've actually wondered how much of a craftsman Murali was versus the preternatural bendiness of his arm and didn't just read one thing and make a pointless insinuation, there are many other factors beyond the test records versus England that made Warne a much bigger name here, both inside and outside the world of cricket.
Inside it, Warne played for Hampshire for eight seasons, and captained them for three, playing 140 games for them. Murali kept dipping in and out of the English country game and played only 82. Warne, famously, was our nadir for over a decade in what is considered to be England's most important series (plural) against the Aussies, particularly after the way he announced himself with the Gatting dismissal. Murali also owned us, but much less often. Warne also set the total-wicket milestones first, and revived the dead art of leg spin, whereas Murali was an off-break bowler. And inside the world of cricket, everyone knows who they both are. (I would also argue Warne was a better overall cricketer than Murali - better bat, much better slip catcher, and (I would suggest purely on anecdotal evidence that might be easily contradicted) a better bowler in all conditions. Murali was great everywhere but he benefited from spin-catered pitches and favourable conditions for such in the sub-continent, whereas Warne would need to (and do so) get life from all conditions. But you aren't here for a debate about the virtues of Warne versus Murali, are you, so I move on.)
Off the field, Warney - proud of his soap opera of a life - made far more news than the completely uncontroversial Murali ever did. By far. And mostly by design. Because he did the TV show rounds, because he was photogenic and brash, because he never shirked a vocal conflict, because he was banging Liz Hurley, because he got sent home one day before the start of the 2003 World Cup for failing a drugs test, because he got fat, because he repeatedly got caught in sexting scandals, because he unashamedly did adverts for Advance Hair Studio, because he was a commentator here for more than a decade, because he was a captain on A Question of Sport, because he lived here on and off for more than two freaking decades....
You know, if you want to know the reasons for things, you could maybe ask questions rather than make allusions to racism. It's just lazy.
As for why Shane Warne was more of a household name in this country that Murali, it might be because he played 36 tests against England compared to 16 for Murali, and 22 on English soil as opposed to 6 for Murali. Of the 22, Warne's Australian team won 12; of Murali's 6, Sri Lanka won only 2. Warne took 195 English test wickets, Murali took 112. Put simply, Warne owned us more than Murali did.
Furthermore, since I have no doubt you are very sincere in your desire to learn about this, just as I'm sure you've actually wondered how much of a craftsman Murali was versus the preternatural bendiness of his arm and didn't just read one thing and make a pointless insinuation, there are many other factors beyond the test records versus England that made Warne a much bigger name here, both inside and outside the world of cricket.
Inside it, Warne played for Hampshire for eight seasons, and captained them for three, playing 140 games for them. Murali kept dipping in and out of the English country game and played only 82. Warne, famously, was our nadir for over a decade in what is considered to be England's most important series (plural) against the Aussies, particularly after the way he announced himself with the Gatting dismissal. Murali also owned us, but much less often. Warne also set the total-wicket milestones first, and revived the dead art of leg spin, whereas Murali was an off-break bowler. And inside the world of cricket, everyone knows who they both are. (I would also argue Warne was a better overall cricketer than Murali - better bat, much better slip catcher, and (I would suggest purely on anecdotal evidence that might be easily contradicted) a better bowler in all conditions. Murali was great everywhere but he benefited from spin-catered pitches and favourable conditions for such in the sub-continent, whereas Warne would need to (and do so) get life from all conditions. But you aren't here for a debate about the virtues of Warne versus Murali, are you, so I move on.)
Off the field, Warney - proud of his soap opera of a life - made far more news than the completely uncontroversial Murali ever did. By far. And mostly by design. Because he did the TV show rounds, because he was photogenic and brash, because he never shirked a vocal conflict, because he was banging Liz Hurley, because he got sent home one day before the start of the 2003 World Cup for failing a drugs test, because he got fat, because he repeatedly got caught in sexting scandals, because he unashamedly did adverts for Advance Hair Studio, because he was a commentator here for more than a decade, because he was a captain on A Question of Sport, because he lived here on and off for more than two freaking decades....
You know, if you want to know the reasons for things, you could maybe ask questions rather than make allusions to racism. It's just lazy.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
- Mark Deeks
- Fanatic
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 3:15 am
Re: Cricket
Now do Jonah Lomu and David Campese.
Eoin Monaghan wrote:
He may not be liked on here, but you have to give some credit to Mark
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
Thanks for the lengthy and detailed reply; I appreciate it.
As for the allusions to racism, I think you should be able to tell that it was tongue in cheek (we're talking at least 85% here) so I think your tone was a bit of an overreaction. I was also aware that The Ashes is considered to be a massive tournament to English fans (see post above somewhere) so any Australian top player is likely to be disproportionately present in the mind of an English cricket fan.
Also I did genuinely wonder how much of a craftsman Murali was. And I don't think my comment at the end there was particularly below the belt. I used the word "freakish" but I don't think there's much to that.
Edit - Some interesting discussion here.
As for the allusions to racism, I think you should be able to tell that it was tongue in cheek (we're talking at least 85% here) so I think your tone was a bit of an overreaction. I was also aware that The Ashes is considered to be a massive tournament to English fans (see post above somewhere) so any Australian top player is likely to be disproportionately present in the mind of an English cricket fan.
Also I did genuinely wonder how much of a craftsman Murali was. And I don't think my comment at the end there was particularly below the belt. I used the word "freakish" but I don't think there's much to that.
Edit - Some interesting discussion here.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Cricket
He was one of those arrogant cricketers (I wont say Australian arrogant cricket as that's tautology) that you couldn't fail to admire he was a match winner and the aforementioned unplayable ball against Gatting (Google it) still gives me goosebumps.
52 was no age and Gatting now looks far more a candidate for heart attack than Warney.
Addressing the Elephant (no not a Gatting reference) in the room
Having failed a drugs test, is it wrong to assume they may be responsible for his early demise.
As for the comparisons between Warne and The Sri Lankan (whose name I won't misspell)
I equate it with Rooney being England's top goalscorer but Charlton the man he beat being the much better footballer although Rooney and Warne are cut from the same cloth when it comes to their sexual proclivities
52 was no age and Gatting now looks far more a candidate for heart attack than Warney.
Addressing the Elephant (no not a Gatting reference) in the room
Having failed a drugs test, is it wrong to assume they may be responsible for his early demise.
As for the comparisons between Warne and The Sri Lankan (whose name I won't misspell)
I equate it with Rooney being England's top goalscorer but Charlton the man he beat being the much better footballer although Rooney and Warne are cut from the same cloth when it comes to their sexual proclivities
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
Re: Cricket
"Celebrity" is a lot more than pure talent/ability/skill- it's being in the right place at the right time, promotion (self or by others), notoriety, scandal, charisma, quirkiness - no one magic formula, but it's certainly not unusual for someone to achieve fame, while their more talented counterpart is forgotten.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Cricket
That's very true, Le Tissier was equally as skillful as Gascoigne but he wasn't high profile and played at unfashionable SouthamptonFiona T wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 10:42 am "Celebrity" is a lot more than pure talent/ability/skill- it's being in the right place at the right time, promotion (self or by others), notoriety, scandal, charisma, quirkiness - no one magic formula, but it's certainly not unusual for someone to achieve fame, while their more talented counterpart is forgotten.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Cricket
No idea how good Charlton was but I think Rooney was a fanastic footballer. Let himself down and never realised his full potential but still excellent. And anyway, Harry Kane will likely surpass them both soon.Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 9:56 am I equate it with Rooney being England's top goalscorer but Charlton the man he beat being the much better footballer...
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Cricket
Great post Mark, fascinating insight into cricket for those of us who don't know much about it but are interested in sport generally. Thanks.Mark Deeks wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 1:02 am As for why Shane Warne was more of a household name in this country that Murali[...]
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
On this discussion, I was a little bit disappointed that they brushed over the whole arm thing.
It's still legitimate to discuss how much of an advantage they think it gave him. If someone asked if height gave an advantage in basketball, you wouldn't say "Well it's legal to be tall."NN: What about Murali's bent arm and suspect action?
SC: It was ultimately cleared by the ICC and that is the only thing that matters. In fact, he was the highest impact bowler in the world during the course of the period his action underwent multiple tests (1996-2004). These incidents only spurred him on as a bowler and motivated him to do even better.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 6347
- Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm
Re: Cricket
Michael Johnson the best 200 and 400 metre specialist ever had extra long shins giving him a more upright running stance giving him an advantageGavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:00 pmOn this discussion, I was a little bit disappointed that they brushed over the whole arm thing.
It's still legitimate to discuss how much of an advantage they think it gave him. If someone asked if height gave an advantage in basketball, you wouldn't say "Well it's legal to be tall."NN: What about Murali's bent arm and suspect action?
SC: It was ultimately cleared by the ICC and that is the only thing that matters. In fact, he was the highest impact bowler in the world during the course of the period his action underwent multiple tests (1996-2004). These incidents only spurred him on as a bowler and motivated him to do even better.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT
- Callum Todd
- Series 69 Champion
- Posts: 1128
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: Cricket
I suppose you could say that all disparity in sporting ability or style is ultimately physiological though, couldn't you? Yes, this particular example of a "congenitally bent arm" seems to be a particularly noticeable difference but ultimately it will just boil down to 'person X performed differently to person Y because their physiology was different'.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:00 pm It's still legitimate to discuss how much of an advantage they think it gave him. If someone asked if height gave an advantage in basketball, you wouldn't say "Well it's legal to be tall."
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.
-
- Post-apocalypse
- Posts: 13312
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm
Re: Cricket
Well not all advantage comes from obviously physical attributes as such so it depends what you mean by physiological. Do differences in brain processing count?Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:30 pmI suppose you could say that all disparity in sporting ability or style is ultimately physiological though, couldn't you? Yes, this particular example of a "congenitally bent arm" seems to be a particularly noticeable difference but ultimately it will just boil down to 'person X performed differently to person Y because their physiology was different'.Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Mar 05, 2022 12:00 pm It's still legitimate to discuss how much of an advantage they think it gave him. If someone asked if height gave an advantage in basketball, you wouldn't say "Well it's legal to be tall."
But that still doesn't answer the question of how much of an advantage it actually gave him or whether he would have been just as good anyway. It's not about belittling his achievements but about breaking down a player's skillset to examine it. I think it's just interesting to know how much difference it made.