England tour of South Africa 09/10

[Valaskjalf]

I wonder how many more batsman we have to get out twice in this innings. Anyway we can get Harper a UK passport so he can follow India or some other team around and terrorise them with his Umpiring rather than us?

I still think one day England will regret "adopting" one of its many South Africans: Put some random South African in their side only to realize after years and years he's been a spy and capable of extraordinary match-fixing, unlike anything seen in cricket lol End up dropping catches and running himself out with 1 run to win the game. That would be incredibly entertaining.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

I wonder how many more batsman we have to get out twice in this innings. Anyway we can get Harper a UK passport so he can follow India or some other team around and terrorise them with his Umpiring rather than us?

Can't remember who it was, but there was an England batsman that was eventually given out for LBW via referral, in the previous match. Original decision: not out (too high). Now, the referral showed that the ball was clipping the bails off the stumps and the decision was reversed. Now, I was under the impression, going by what everyone's saying on TV that the referral system is there to catch the real howlers (eh, Mr Harper?) There is no way in hell anyone could see 'clipping the bails' as a real howler - yet the decision was reversed. Today, we see a genuine 'howler' (how could the onfield umpire not hear that nick) - yet it's still given not out.

 

[Sureshot]

We need a bit more than "Broad bowling nicely", although the Onions-Sidebottom desicision looks awful given Sidebottom hasn't played in the series so why make that change LAST TEST!?!? Can't see what Pakistan gained by dropping Akmal if that too is the last Test of three in which Pakistan are 0-2 behind (if that is the series position)

I stick by my predictions, that South Africa will establish a grip on the game before an England fightback to no avail.

Wouldn't it be ironic if England had to dig deep to avoid defeat in THREE Tests of the four in order to win 1-0..........................? It is a possibility, one of those things like losing at tennis 6-0, 6-7, 6-0, 6-7, 6-8 ie losing despite dominating/winning more games than your opponent (30-22)

Broad was pretty close to getting Amla in that spell.

 

[MUFC1987]

I still think one day England will regret "adopting" one of its many South Africans: Put some random South African in their side only to realize after years and years he's been a spy and capable of extraordinary match-fixing, unlike anything seen in cricket lol End up dropping catches and running himself out with 1 run to win the game. That would be incredibly entertaining.

Well, incase you didn't realise, you have to be English to play for England, just like Pietersen, Strauss, Kieswetter etc.

Although I guess there's no denying that South Africans are probably better at the whole match fixing thing than most other Countries.

 

[Valaskjalf]

Well, incase you didn't realise, you have to be English to play for England, just like Pietersen, Strauss, Kieswetter etc.

Although I guess there's no denying that South Africans are probably better at the whole match fixing thing than most other Countries.

I think you seemed to have misunderstood "adopt" for something other than "qualify to play for England". But anway...is it the fact that your losing this game or do you just not have a sense of humor in general? How German of you.

 

[MUFC1987]

I just think it's ironic that you keep on going on and on about England apparently having South African players in their team, yet as soon as anyone mentions Harris or Tahir, it gets swept under the rug. I guess I'm fed up of the same childish 'You have South Africans in your team! LOL!!!!!!' crap that keeps on being mentioned. I can only assume it keeps on being brought up because South Africa are losing. I doubt anyone would care about Trott etc if South Africa were 3-0 up.

And no, I don't do jokes about match fixing, because it's a very serious issue that should not be joked about.

Oh, and it turns out the host broadcaster didn't give Harper any sound to hear, how convenient.

MUFC1987 added 3 Minutes and 24 Seconds later...

I think you seemed to have misunderstood "adopt" for something other than "qualify to play for England". But anway...is it the fact that your losing this game or do you just not have a sense of humor in general? How German of you.

I'll respond to your edit too. The term 'adopt' essentially means taking as your own. We don't need to do that because Pietersen, Kieswetter etc have British parents. So get over it.

No idea what the German thing is on about.

 

[Valaskjalf]

I just think it's ironic that you keep on going on and on about England apparently having South African players in their team, yet as soon as anyone mentions Harris or Tahir, it gets swept under the rug. I guess I'm fed up of the same childish 'You have South Africans in your team! LOL!!!!!!' crap that keeps on being mentioned. I can only assume it keeps on being brought up because South Africa are losing. I doubt anyone would care about Trott etc if South Africa were 3-0 up.

And no, I don't do jokes about match fixing, because it's a very serious issue that should not be joked about.

Oh really? I like how you say "its ironic that you keep on and on..." Where the hell did you rub that one out of dude? As if Ive mentioned anything remotely like that.

Well since youre so "fed" up I must tell you how fed up I am of stuck up fools like you generalising and grasping at straws and then have the nerve to pull the "childish" card on me. Get a life mate...or try to smile once in a while. Either way cheer the fack up. I was kidding so chill. I really can't be arsed about how many South Africans you have in your side...theres enough English people on this site cracking jokes about it as South Africans but you probably wouldnt understand because ou have no sense of humour.

Edit: If you dont understand the german reference then to be honest Im not even going there and am not slightly surprised.

 

[MUFC1987]

I still think one day England will regret "adopting" one of its many South Africans

This is you bringing it up, again, in response to one of my posts. Hence me mentioning you bringing it up.

 

[Valaskjalf]

This is you bringing it up, again, in response to one of my posts. Hence me mentioning you bringing it up.

And once again...stop seeing everything as an attack or act of "childish" behaviour because I can guarantee you, most of the time its meant to be a joke. Which it was.

 

[Garson007]

Yesterday, the second replay angle of Cook's decision clearly showed the bowler's heel was on the line. On the line, correct me if I'm wrong, means a no-ball. At that stage, Cook was going really well and every extra run scored would've been vital to England.

But today, what I heard today really takes the biscuit. When Smith was given not out and it went to review, you could clearly hear a nick as the ball went through to the keeper. That nick could only have come from ball on bat - the bat was nowhere near the ground or the batsman's body.

First off, the line belongs to the umpire. So even if Morkel didn't have a part of his boot behind the line, but rather on it, the on-field umpire decision should stick. That's not even the case however, because he had part of his foot behind the line.

The Smith dismissal is inconclusive. Sound is not enough to suggest that there was a nick, especially when both Smith and the umpire stood still. Remember that decisions should only be overturned when there is no doubt that the umpire made the wrong decision - there was doubt. Especially from a TV umpire's point of view in that there was no ball deviation to be seen; I don't just mean the trajectory either, but also the turn of the ball, etc.

 

[MUFC1987]

The Smith dismissal is inconclusive. Sound is not enough to suggest that there was a nick, especially when both Smith and the umpire stood still. Remember that decisions should only be overturned when there is no doubt that the umpire made the wrong decision - there was doubt. Especially from a TV umpire's point of view in that there was no ball deviation to be seen; I don't just mean the trajectory either, but also the turn of the ball, etc.

You were expecting Smith to walk?

 

[Garson007]

You were expecting Smith to walk?

Haha, no, but it helps. :laugh

 

[MUFC1987]

No one ever walks though, so I don't think you can ever look at a players reaction to see if he hit it or not. Of course Smith is going to shake his head and say he didn't, because he's more worried about the result than getting the correct decision, it's the same with all players these days.

Smith knows damn well that he hit it though and it's an absolute shambles that it wasn't given on review, whether it be Harper's fault or whoever was controlling the feed.

 

[Sureshot]

First off, the line belongs to the umpire. So even if Morkel didn't have a part of his boot behind the line, but rather on it, the on-field umpire decision should stick.

No it shouldn't, if there was conclusive proof that Morkel was on the line, then it's a no-ball, irrelevant of whether that wasn't what the umpire called or not.


---

Valaska/MUFC, please keep it civil guys. Though I expect you've moved on anyway, but hey ho, I haz ze powah!

As for today, there were two issues which concerned me.

The Smith review. It raises many questions, not only (as Andy Flower pointed out) that the lack of a standardised use of technology, is rather disruptive to the game. We have to use the same equipment everywhere. Not only that, but how was that snick not heard? From behind the wicket (elevated keeper view), it even showed a deflection from the bat.

Floodlights. I'm sorry, but this is a farcical decision. We have floodlights, use them, don't have them on all day, then go off the field when the light gets bad. Do they go off for bad light in ODIs as the artificial light takes over from the natural light? No. This talk of shadows is nonsense. You're professional sportsman, at the top of your game. Deal with it, it's not dangerous, it's detrimental to the game. If I'd have been there today, say through a violent thunderstorm, they come out for 3 overs and have to go off for bad light, whilst the floodlights were on, it's a fair bit, I'd be about to throw a tantrum.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

I doubt anyone would care about Trott etc if South Africa were 3-0 up.

by the same token I doubt england would be throwing a little hissy fit over an umpiring call if they were ahead in this match. don't recall england complaining in the windies when the review system was used in ridiculously contradictory ways to get a few west indian batsmen out.

losers are usually the whiners.