2nd Test: England v Australia at Lord's

[mattfb]

Sorry it was actually Clarke who took the catch.
Anyways, I am not living in the past, I was just trying to explain that how Ponting cheats and does not have the sportsman spirit.
Clarke had taken the catch, but it was Ponting who was sure that the catch was clean. Is that not a cheating, then what?
Hughes was out yesterday, he did not had a problem, but again Ponting had.

If you say Ponting was cheating for saying Clarke took the catch then how do you not think Stauss was for claiming his too? Hypocrite...

Once again, Ponting was at the non strikers end and would have seen it might not of carried. Hughes wouldn't of had a good view having to turn around quickly. Get over your hate for Ponting, your arguements are pretty stupid.

 

[AbhishekS]

What about the catch Ryder took of Dhoni in the 1st test match, he didn't walk. Should I label him a cheat?

I did not see that match as my exams were on.
Dhoni might have done it once, but Ponting is just so often with those things. My personal view is that Ricky Ponting is a very (might be the most) dishonest player currently.

yudi28 added 2 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

If you say Ponting was cheating for saying Clarke took the catch then how do you not think Stauss was for claiming his too? Hypocrite...

Once again, Ponting was at the non strikers end and would have seen it might not of carried. Hughes wouldn't of had a good view having to turn around quickly. Get over your hate for Ponting, your arguements are pretty stupid.

In the Ponting-Clarke case, it was Clake who took the catch and Ponting was the one who gave the assurity.

But in the Strauss case, Strauss had only taken the catch and therefore he was sure of it.

There is a big difference in both the cases.

 

[mattfb]

In the Ponting-Clarke case, it was Clake who took the catch and Ponting was the one who gave the assurity.

But in the Strauss case, Strauss had only taken the catch and therefore he was sure of it.

There is big difference in both the cases.

Well why didn't any of Strauss's teammates say anything?

 

[Howsie]

I did not see that match as my exams were on.
Dhoni might have done it once, but Ponting is just so often with those things. My personal view is that Ricky Ponting is a very (might be the most) dishonest player currently.

yudi28 added 2 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...



In the Ponting-Clarke case, it was Clake who took the catch and Ponting was the one who gave the assurity.

But in the Strauss case, Strauss had only taken the catch and therefore he was sure of it.

There is big difference in both the cases.

Sorry but that's rubbish.

 

[mattfb]

I did not see that match as my exams were on.
Dhoni might have done it once, but Ponting is just so often with those things. My personal view is that Ricky Ponting is a very (might be the most) dishonest player currently.

Mate you don't watch enough cricket. Plenty of times he says a ball fell just short or he wasn't sure if he got it. Get over Sydney mate.

 

[kenpat]

I've only seen the highlights but to my mind there have been several dubious umpiring decisions in this test match. All of these have been in Englands favour. If I'm wrong then please feel free to point out others that have went the Aussies way.
I want England to retain the ashes but it would be nice if they beat the old enemy fairly.
However as some one said in an earlier post, these things happen.

 

[AbhishekS]

Well why didn't any of Strauss's teammates say anything?

Because the Englishmen were honest. In such a tight catch, the person who has taken the catch is only sure about the catch, rest no one else can be sure about a catch that close.

 

[mattfb]

Because the Englishmen were honest. In such a tight catch, the person who has taken the catch is only sure about the catch, rest no one else can be sure about a catch that close.

No that means there not honest if they don't say anything. Those around Strauss would of had doubts, so they should have said to refer it.

Just like when Hauritz claimed a catch, the Australian fieldsmen weren't sure if it carried so they told the umpire to check it. Geez, that's really unhonest and cheating play from us. Blast Ponting, telling the umpire to refer it because we weren't sure if it carried even though Hauritz thought it did. What a terrible cheat.

 

[age of the fall]

If Australia lose this test I can see at least 4 people saying Australia would have won had it not been for the umpires and Strauss "Cheating"

 

[mattfb]

If Australia lose this test I can see at least 4 people saying Australia would have won had it not been for the umpires and Strauss "Cheating"

Can I say that we would of already won if it wasn't for the umpires and Strauss cheating?

 

[AbhishekS]

No that means there not honest if they don't say anything. Those around Strauss would of had doubts, so they should have said to refer it.

Just like when Hauritz claimed a catch, the Australian fieldsmen weren't sure if it carried so they told the umpire to check it. Geez, that's really unhonest and cheating play from us. Blast Ponting, telling the umpire to refer it because we weren't sure if it carried even though Hauritz thought it did. What a terrible cheat.

yup they had doubts that is why they did not say anything, they wanted to be fair and wished to play the game with correct spirit.
I am sure if Ponting would have been in England, he surely would say that Strauss has taken the catch cleanly and Hughes is out.

 

[SciD]

If it rains today it will be justice. Aussies deserved first test and Poms this one. So it should be even at the end of this game. 0-0.

 

[mattfb]

yup they had doubts that is why they did not say anything, they wanted to be fair and wished to play the game with correct spirit.

LOL that makes no sense. If you have doubts that the catch is taken why claim it? You say: "Oh I'm not sure if you caught that Straussy mate. Tell the umpires to have a look."

Read the next bit of my post. Ponting didn't claim the Hauritz catch and was happy for the umpires to look at it. Lol at you not being able to get over Sydney.

 

[age of the fall]

Can I say that we would of already won if it wasn't for the umpires and Strauss cheating?

I never said you couldn't

 

[Howsie]

yup they had doubts that is why they did not say anything, they wanted to be fair and wished to play the game with correct spirit.
I am sure if Ponting would have been in England, he surely would say that Strauss has taken the catch cleanly and Hughes is out.

Dumbest thing I have ever read on here tbh.