Cricket thread

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 27 Nov 2006 05:24 pm

yeah the rules don't need to be changed. Everyone knows England were flogged convincingly.

Edit: QLD wins outright against Victoria. Woo go sons! Let's make both finals again!

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 27 Nov 2006 07:15 pm

The score says we won by 277runs. That's a flogging and a half. Given we had 10 wickets left and our second set we were 1 for 202... I just hate the fucking poms and want the score to reflect how badly they sucked

I'm not even a fan of cricket. Although i must admit i've been keeping up to date on the score constantly this series.

Also, i didn't mean for a timeless test. I just mean in that 5 day period. If they can't get us out, we shouldn't draw just because we didn't get them all out due to not having any time left. Australia's score was restricted by time, the poms was restricted by us being a better team.

westical · Post by **westical** » 27 Nov 2006 07:39 pm

mxlegend99 wrote:I'm not even a fan of cricket.

Get the fuck out of my country.

Madmya · Post by **Madmya** » 27 Nov 2006 08:39 pm

and he wants to change the rules............................................

BOOMY · Post by **BOOMY** » 27 Nov 2006 11:16 pm

BURN HIM! KILL HIM! NAIL HIS NUTS TO A RUSTY POOOOLLLLLEEEE!

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 27 Nov 2006 11:18 pm

BOOMY wrote:BURN HIM! KILL HIM! NAIL HIS NUTS TO A RUSTY POOOOLLLLLEEEE!

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 28 Nov 2006 07:09 am

Australia shouldn't have to declare just to be certain to win.

Just my opinion.

t0mby · Post by **t0mby** » 28 Nov 2006 08:38 am

I dont understand why teams declare anyway. Go for a world record in the amount of runs scored in a test match, thats what Id go for. It would also put a shit load of pressure on the opposing team, not that England needed it.

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 28 Nov 2006 09:13 am

That's what i mean.

We HAD to declare, or we would have drawn. Odds on England would not have gotten us all out a second time, and even if they had, we wouldn't have had the time to get them all out. Therefore we would have tied with them even though we had like a thousand extra runs.

In the end we still flogged them. But the rules are flawed. If they can't get us all out in that time frame, we shouldn't be punished by having to declare or draw. Just my opinion.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 28 Nov 2006 10:33 am

mxlegend99 wrote:That's what i mean.

We HAD to declare, or we would have drawn. Odds on England would not have gotten us all out a second time, and even if they had, we wouldn't have had the time to get them all out. Therefore we would have tied with them even though we had like a thousand extra runs.

In the end we still flogged them. But the rules are flawed. If they can't get us all out in that time frame, we shouldn't be punished by having to declare or draw. Just my opinion.

Draw, not tie, ignoramus

The rules are not flawed. Australia played a lot better and won by nearly 300 runs. I see no problem with this.

jahooley · Post by **jahooley** » 28 Nov 2006 10:45 am

Yea what are you guys tryna say here?
They should of enforced the follow-on?

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 28 Nov 2006 11:08 am

Ambrose Burnside wrote:
mxlegend99 wrote:That's what i mean.

We HAD to declare, or we would have drawn. Odds on England would not have gotten us all out a second time, and even if they had, we wouldn't have had the time to get them all out. Therefore we would have tied with them even though we had like a thousand extra runs.

In the end we still flogged them. But the rules are flawed. If they can't get us all out in that time frame, we shouldn't be punished by having to declare or draw. Just my opinion.
Draw, not tie, ignoramus

Re-read it again fuckwit.

(btw, to draw and tie in a sport, is the exact same thing)

Ambrose Burnside wrote:The rules are not flawed. Australia played a lot better and won by nearly 300 runs. I see no problem with this.

The rules are flawed. Had we not declared, we would have lost. That is fucking flawed. We had to declare so that we had enough time to get them all out. We still had a total of 10 wickets remaining.

edit
Ambrose, explain how this is not a flaw in the rules:

We HAD to declare, or we would have drawn. Odds on England would not have gotten us all out a second time, and even if they had, we wouldn't have had the time to get them all out. Therefore we would have tied with them even though we had like a thousand extra runs.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 28 Nov 2006 11:17 am

mxlegend99 wrote:
Ambrose Burnside wrote:
mxlegend99 wrote:That's what i mean.

We HAD to declare, or we would have drawn. Odds on England would not have gotten us all out a second time, and even if they had, we wouldn't have had the time to get them all out. Therefore we would have tied with them even though we had like a thousand extra runs.

In the end we still flogged them. But the rules are flawed. If they can't get us all out in that time frame, we shouldn't be punished by having to declare or draw. Just my opinion.
Draw, not tie, ignoramus
Re-read it again fuckwit.

You can't have a tie with 1000 extra runs Mr. Ignoramus.

mxlegend99 wrote:
Ambrose Burnside wrote:The rules are not flawed. Australia played a lot better and won by nearly 300 runs. I see no problem with this.
The rules are flawed. Had we not declared, we would have lost. That is fucking flawed. We had to declare so that we had enough time to get them all out. We still had a total of 10 wickets remaining.

Australia wouldn't have lost if they hadn't declared. They would have batted for 5 days straight and the match would have been a draw. Or Ponting could have enforced the follow-on after England's first innings (which was 150-something in reply to Australia's 600-something) and bowl them out again for less than Australia's first innings total and Australia would have won without having to bat a second time. Ponting made the decision to bat again (probably to give his bowlers a rest), so the rules are not to "blame".

Blame the captain who led his team to a 277 run win if you really want to Mr. Ignoramus

General Chaos · Post by **General Chaos** » 28 Nov 2006 11:30 am

Ponting did the right thing by his team. Remember when that fuckwit of a captain Steve Waugh led us to defeat from the jaws of victory in India by enforcing the follow on and grinding our bowlers into the ground (ensuring we went on to lose the series).

Yep lets blame Ponting for doing the right thing.

Don't even try and tell me Waugh is a better captain. He was just fortunate to inherit the Aussie team in its absolute prime!

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 28 Nov 2006 11:31 am

Ambrose Burnside wrote:
mxlegend99 wrote:
Ambrose Burnside wrote: Draw, not tie, ignoramus
Re-read it again fuckwit.
You can't have a tie with 1000 extra runs Mr. Ignoramus.

Therein lies the flaw you moron.

Ambrose Burnside wrote:
mxlegend99 wrote:
Ambrose Burnside wrote:The rules are not flawed. Australia played a lot better and won by nearly 300 runs. I see no problem with this.
The rules are flawed. Had we not declared, we would have lost. That is fucking flawed. We had to declare so that we had enough time to get them all out. We still had a total of 10 wickets remaining.
Australia wouldn't have lost if they hadn't declared. They would have batted for 5 days straight and the match would have been a draw. Or Ponting could have enforced the follow-on after England's first innings (which was 150-something in reply to Australia's 600-something) and bowl them out again for less than Australia's first innings total and Australia would have won without having to bat a second time. Ponting made the decision to bat again (probably to give his bowlers a rest), so the rules are not to "blame".

The rules are too blame, as the rules are why we had to declare

No matter what way you try to defend it, at the end of the day... Australia had to sacrifice wickets to win. Had we not sacrificed wickets, we would have drawn. That is fucking flawed.

Ambrose Burnside wrote:Blame the captain who led his team to a 277 run win if you really want to Mr. Ignoramus

Where the fuck have i denied we won or anything of the sort? You're the ignorant one. You're missing the point entirely.

For Australia to win, we HAD to sacrifice wickets. How is that not flawed?

edit

General Chaos wrote:Ponting did the right thing by his team. Remember when that fuckwit of a captain Steve Waugh led us to defeat from the jaws of victory in India by enforcing the follow on and grinding our bowlers into the ground (ensuring we went on to lose the series).

Yep lets blame Ponting for doing the right thing.

Don't even try and tell me Waugh is a better captain. He was just fortunate to inherit the Aussie team in its absolute prime!

Agreed 100%. The logical thing to do is alternate between the two, not do them back to back.

Unfortunately, if you have a massive lead from batting. It cuts down the time and you have to make sure you allow enough time to get the opposition all out twice. Which IMO is a flaw.

Cricket fans may feel different. I just think it's stupid to see that a team can be so superior and the result be a draw.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 28 Nov 2006 11:37 am

The rules are clear. To win, you have to bowl the opposing team out twice. If you're not good enough to do that, you don't deserve to win.

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 28 Nov 2006 11:48 am

Ambrose Burnside wrote:The rules are clear. To win, you have to bowl the opposing team out twice. If you're not good enough to do that, you don't deserve to win.

And if they're not good enough to bowl you all out even once? They deserve to draw?

The dominant batting team has to sacrifice wickets to have enough time to get the opposition out. The rules work in favour of the shit team.

I know we have no issues winning. But to me, it looks like we're penalised for being a great team. Ponting alone outscored the Poms the first time around.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 28 Nov 2006 11:54 am

"Sacrificing wickets" as you call it is a good thing. You won't hear any Australian fan complaining if Australia was in a position to declare its first innings at 1/600.

jahooley · Post by **jahooley** » 28 Nov 2006 11:56 am

*sigh* this thread is completely ruined...

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 28 Nov 2006 12:06 pm

Ambrose Burnside wrote:"Sacrificing wickets" as you call it is a good thing. You won't hear any Australian fan complaining if Australia was in a position to declare its first innings at 1/600.

So long as we win, that's all that matters, true.

Still doesn't change the fact that had England just managed to hold on with 1 wicket remaining even if we had 1000+ runs over them, that the result would have been a draw.

We shouldn't have to declare to be certain of victory. That's just my opinion. People were concerned that it would happen this test when the Aussies elected to bat again. Our captain got critscized for this decision and had we gone on to draw, he would have been blamed for it.

jahooley wrote:*sigh* this thread is completely ruined...

There will be more pommie hating in not too long. No need to worry.

General Chaos · Post by **General Chaos** » 28 Nov 2006 12:07 pm

"NEEDS MORE SPACE!!" "NEEDS MORE TIME!"

Same shit different thread. Mx Strikes with his shit again!

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 28 Nov 2006 12:08 pm

General Chaos wrote:"NEEDS MORE SPACE!!" "NEEDS MORE TIME!"

Same shit different thread. Mx Strikes with his shit again!

PS: Declaring is good. If Australia didn't have the privilege of being able to, the match would have been a lot closer. The fact Australia declared in BOTH innings (I think?) shows how much of a flogging it was.

mxlegend99 · Post by **mxlegend99** » 28 Nov 2006 12:13 pm

General Chaos wrote:"NEEDS MORE SPACE!!" "NEEDS MORE TIME!"

Same shit different thread. Mx Strikes with his shit again!

Actually, i never said we need more time.

5 days is enough. We just shouldn't have to sacrifice our batting to make sure we get them all out twice.

Ambrose Burnside · Post by **Ambrose Burnside** » 28 Nov 2006 12:15 pm

mxlegend99 wrote:
General Chaos wrote:"NEEDS MORE SPACE!!" "NEEDS MORE TIME!"

Same shit different thread. Mx Strikes with his shit again!
Actually, i never said we need more time.

5 days is enough. We just shouldn't have to sacrifice our batting to make sure we get them all out twice.

So what's your solution to this "problem"?

General Chaos · Post by **General Chaos** » 28 Nov 2006 12:26 pm

Shutting the fuck up it would seem!