« B FOR VENDETTA | Main | PULLED A FATSTRING »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Big Ramifications

First words true words:

Ohh... dear dear dear. I hope he's not claiming that bowled Johnson out because if he is... that isn't very good at all.

Mark Nicholas at 0:58s.

Then James Brayshaw hits us with a bit of The Bard.

Tony

Since I obviously did not make my sarcasm clear enough, and since there has been the odd misinterpretation on Twitter - I wrote Botham's "commentary".

Big Ramifications

Damn you. I went thru 4 seasons of emotions. I was gonna comment "will Beefy be consistent and call out this blatant act of cheating?" but I hadn't read your post properly so I re read it to check for any mention of Beefy and then I find he had called it out but then you said *not said and I'm all "hmmmmm" and then I'm all "did he not say it or did he not say just the last sentence?" and then I'm all "I don't get Tony's joke but they were probably real quotes."

The Don has Risen

In his defence.

He was here for the tests he ain't here now and given this desultory series probably isn't even watching.

You also have to realise he has a 'beef' ( pun intended) against fieldsman who claim CATCHES when it hits the ground. There is a lot of history there

Tony

They were ALL Botham's quotes. Almost. I changed Hughes for Prior and bounced for bowled.

Tony

Yes, I realise he's not here, Don. But I like to amuse myself. I'm sure if he was he, here would have come out with consistent condemnation.

The Don has Risen

Tony ,

git back to school!!

He is consistent on 'catches'.

This was not a catch. Its a beefy thing

Big Ramifications

Is James Brayshaw really that slick? He was straight into the sponsor friendly, controversy free shtick. It was all just a big misunderstanding.

Does he honestly believe that?

Nicholas followed up Brayshaw's fence sitting with another call out, which was good to see. Although he was drifting towards the sponsor friendly controversy free zone by calling it a "silly moment."

The Don has Risen

I have to say as an Umpire I would have had an aside with Prior and asked him why he appealed

m0nty

Once again, the AGB drives the cricket media agenda.

Hewy

Whilst AGB is driving the media agenda I thought I might stay on theme but change tack tact...

Last night, whilst wondering just whether it was 80% or 85% of Finn's wickets this summer have come from bouncers, I noticed a side on replay which showed that in fact that bouncer may indeed have a whiff of the chuck about it.

Tony can you pull some strings and get him sent to the clearing house?

Tony

Hewy, they say a fast bowler's "effort" ball is the one that veers into chuck territory, so you could be onto something. I always reckon that Courtney Walsh got a little bendy when he tried for chin music - there might even be a hint of bend to the ball he got McDermott with in Adelaide in 1993 - but that's probably just my anti-chuck zeal playing tricks with my powers of observation.

Tony

Oh, and I agree about Finn and his bouncers; although you are being charitable since many of his wicket balls, while strictly bouncers, were more pie than peach. He has got a shed load of wickets with rubbish.

Hewy

Courtney Walsh's bouncer was a chuck - no doubt. I remember some obscure stat about him having hit the most batsmen as it was just so much quicker than anything else he bowled.
Wayne Clark, who played some Tests back in the WSC days, was the undisputed master of the chuck bouncer. Despite an impressive record, the ACB quietly shuffled him off when Lillee et al came back - it was just too obvious.

I certainly didn't say Finn's wickets were any good. I was in fact pondering how so may pies can get wickets when yet another pie got him one. Then suddenly I had a moment of clarity! His 17 wickets this summer suddenly made a lot more sense.


Tony

We started the summer calling him Skinny Finn (after his fatty namesake), but ended the summer calling him Filthy Finn (after his filthy bowling).

I note also that he bowled with a fair bit of variety last night and that his action was ungainly (I didn't get a good enough look to say it was chucky) as he sought to unveil an array of different balls. Which brings me to a more general question: do bowlers run the risk of falling foul of 15 degrees as they try to bowl more and more quirky and unnatural balls?

Hewy

I would have said probably not. The purpose of the quirky delivery is to deliver it similar to a normal delivery but with added quirk - wrist, fingers, behind the crease, gillespie flappy arms etc.

However, with the umpires unable to effectively stop a bowler from chucking it occasionally, rather than having an actual flawed action, I can see it become more prevalent.
We desperately need in game testing. It can be done and UWA can do it. The ICC just need to stump up the (fairly minimal) cash.

Tony

Tacked another article onto the bottom of the post.

Adsy

With regards to the latest post: The "I don't know" gesture at least gives fielders a 50/50 shot of technology either failing (grainy picture being inconclusive or possibly in the fielders favour but with some doubt) and them getting the decision, or if it bounces then they can get away with not actually claiming a catch that clearly bounced by playing the innocence card. Problem with Prior's is that he claimed 100% it was bowled instead of the now standard each way bet, and has come a cropper.

It's worse in a lot of people's books to claim an inconclusive close to the ground catch than it is to hum and ahh and half claim a ball that you KNOW isn't probably out. But I think the opposite should apply.

patard with a vengeance

Oh, geez Tones ya got the Pommies there. No word about Cric Oz's discriminating against my children then?

I see your priorities are set straight then. Cricket, right, that's your blog.

So, let me get this straight: Prior cheats a wicket = bad, Cric Oz discriminates against my children based on race = no comment.

Correct?

I'm not taking excuses a la Cameron or Big Rammer, I just wanna know, where does big Tones stand on the issue?

Tony

Fvck me, you go on.

Vicky

Think you might be a tad bit confused about the definition of genocide there, Pat. Just a heads up before you invite ridicule unto your person.

m0nty

Which state does this shaved gorilla play for and what's his name, I want him in my Big Bash Dream Team.

patard with a vengeance

I see the AGB crew are all in concert. Note, Tones, I bring you overseas viewers more than you ever brought me, not that I'm complaining, just noting. I suppose I do go on, BUT, you know, I got real life flesh and fucking blood here mate.

I'd like to see you and your Vic filth comment on the fact that the ACB is discriminating against my children. Because of their race. But you won't will ya will ya you big fucken TAFE teacher and all? And you Mont you fuckin BOGAN, I know that term just shits ya, and every other one of you Victorian Cunts (see, I said that without pretending).

I think you are a flake Tone and you too mOnt. You go on and on about Ozzie cricket yet you couldn't give a fuck about Ozzies. Censor that Tones. Go on, delete it.

So you and mOnt are gonna breed the next gen are yers? Unless ya got a box I don't think so. And I'm not breeding just so you cunts (note no need to pretend it's a "rude" word, when you all say it) can live off it.

Tony, I simply ask that you comment on the articles that I have quoted. Is that too much?

You've got a big fucken' mouth mate, and I applaud it, and I want to hear it pronounce upon my FUCKEN KIDS!

See, it's real for me mate. I don't fucken appreciate the smh, Spanky or Buchanan telling me that I, and my kids, are Anglos let alone that they should be removed from the game. So how about you state something that Tim Blair hasn't forbidden you to say? Hey?

Do MY KIDS COUNT?! Gom on Tones, I dares yan to say somefink controversial, I mean...not a media suck up..somfinkk SUBSTANTIAL and controversial.

patard with a vengeance

But you won't will ya. You and mOnt of Geelong. Because you stand for nothing.

David Barry

Cricket Australia doesn't think that your kids should be removed from cricket, and how you managed to get that impression from Roebuck or Buchanan, I have no idea. Your White Nationalism is bizarre, completely wrong-headed, and it was disappointing to read your blog and learn that you peddle outrageous, offensive, racist garbage.

Yobbo

What is this I don't even....

m0nty

Alright Pat, let's treat your blog post with a modicum of respect and answer its substance. I will ignore the personal insults contained therein, in the interests of a healthy debate.

Yes, I don't care how the Australian cricket team is constituted when it comes down to it, though bits of ACB/CA policy have worried me over the years. I have to say I was a little perturbed back in the day when Kepler Wessels was wheeled in from the veldt, I thought that was rather un-Australian. My lack of real concern is mostly to do with the knowledge that some of the more radical overseas policies would not get off the ground here under any circumstances. I would not agree with a Vark-style quota, or having half of our team from Nauru or the Solomon Islands similar to what England has done with its former colonies, but of course that's never going to fly here anyway.

Which is why I am a little bemused at your rant, Pat. Spanky can crap on all he likes, cheered on by the Fairfax urban elites, but it's not as if there will actually be any exclusionary policies enacted by CA as a result of all this falderol. CA's marketing arm may want to see more non-Anglo-Celtic skintones amongst its playing ranks so that they can compete with the swarthiness of Aussie Timmy Cahilly, but that doesn't mean that selections have, or indeed ever will, be dictated by racism.

Essentially, all this concern of yours is caused by CA's official marketing dickhead, Mike McKenna - a palefaced bog Irish name if ever I heard one. He is a military moron of the first order, notwithstanding (or perhaps evidenced by) his positive contribution to CA's bottom line. He is part of the current problem at CA, no doubt.

I suppose part of the silence at the AGB on the topic - though of course I don't speak for the others - is due to the fact that assertions like the ones Spanky and McKenna are spruiking are so dumb that they aren't worth legitimising by treating them seriously enough to discuss. If blogs like this one made a big issue out of it, it would probably be counterproductive because McKenna could point to us being a part of the monoculture he is talking about. With these things, it's best to keep shtum and hope that saner minds prevail. CA may have done a great line in neglect during the Stakeholders era, but they haven't often extended to downright sabotage.

So in short, Pat, I guess I still have enough faith in the system to trust that this silliness will not stick without us gubbas taking to the streets in protest.

Tony

Patard With Issues, if you want "somfinkk SUBSTANTIAL and controversial" and you want to see something about CA discriminating against your kids, find it elsewhere.

Vindicate

Read those comments last night and wasn't sure whether Pat was massively taking the piss, or had massively been on the piss and felt like getting into a virtual stouch - guess you don't have to worry about the bruises, except to the ego perhaps.

Either way, from the sublime to the rediculous or, in this case, vice versa - got a giggle out of this: http://blogs.espncricinfo.com/andyzaltzman//archives/2011/02/blaming_the_eden_gardens_look.php

Big Ramifications

The worst claimed non-catch I saw was an Andy Bichel C&B that bounced half a foot in front of his hand. It was a LOUD appeal, too.

At that level, with thousands of hours of fielding and fielding practice under your belt, how could you get it so wrong?

Granted, C&Bs are often sharp chances and the bowler might be all tangled up, but the angle of incidence would have been all wrong. SURELY he would have felt the ball was hitting his palm at completely the wrong angle.

[CITATION FOOTAGE NEEDED]

Tony

Biggy, that's a good point you make about the ball hitting the hand at the wrong angle. As a wicket-keeper, I could always tell when I was grabbing a catch or a half volley.

Another "tell" is the weight with which the ball hits the hand. When you take a low catch the ball thumps into your hand, but when you take a half volley the ball nestles lightly into your hand as the ball loses pace off the deck.

Tony

Ganguly off Gilchrist in the 2003 World Cup:

Richie: "There's been plenty happening out there. Oh, it's come off his hip... and it didn't... well... hang on a sec."

Gilchrist: "Easy game with the replay, isn't it."

Big Ramifications

Spot on Tony, they're the two main non-visual cues for sure. The ground takes off a fair whack of speed.

[I was a 'keeper, too!]

Big Rammer's mum

Get a room, you two!

RT

Claimed non-catches pale into insignificance when you look at that Prior footage. "The bail is off!" What A Fvcking Cheat. The annoying thing is if it happened to an Oz keeper he would be duly vilified and dropped. Please Haddin, do the right (wrong) thing...

Tony

Several Aussie journalists on Twitter have been stirring their Pommy counterparts for not giving Prior the rounds of the kitchen, and for basically going silent on Prior. But as far as I can tell, the Aussie journalists have also been reasonably muted in their criticism. Why, is anyone's guess.

RT

Agree, curious.

Big Rammer's mum

I meant angle of incidence into his hand, of course. As opposed to angle of reflection off the ground. Which is the same thing in this instance.

You know what they say. One man's trash angle of incidence is another man's treasure angle of reflection.

Big Ramifications

Dammit, mum! Could you delete forms and passwords when you've finished borrowing my computer.

patard with a vengeance

Flake.

patard with a vengeance

Hey Dave Barry, why don't you fucken comprehend what you read you ignorant fucknuckle. Take your anti-racism and stick it up your statistical arse, cunt.

And as for you Tones. I shake your shit from my feet. I've had enough of soft cock dickheads like yourself pretending that you are so fucken intellectual cause you can do the cryptic crossword. Who the fuck do you think you are with your wanked up post headers "Oh, I think the shorter they are the better I appear to myself."?

btw, Harry Hutton isn't actually very funny. Snide superiority is actually...snide superiority. Much like your sense of humour.

I take racial abuse of my children personally, amazing isn't it? I suppose in the rarified atmosphere of some Melbournian backwater where you all pretend you're sipping a short black in a Prague side street, reality is a commodity in short supply.

Go and mow a lawn you dead loss and hopefully retrieve whatever dignity you once had.

patard with a vengeance

One more thing. Andrew Symonds let alone Matthew Hayden are 100 times the man you pretend to be.

patard with a vengeance

Flake.

Yobbo

lol u mad?

Bruce

Am I remembering correctly that Pat was a staunch defender of alcohol when it came up earlier?

Patard hoisted?

m0nty

I had thought Pat had been banned, he was so quiet. He's doing a good job of trying to get himself banned.

Tony

Pat's certainly giving it his best shot. I get the impression he might even be doing it intentionally.

I hate net-keepers and tut-tutters and people who tell you how to blog and what to write and who to ban. Demonland is shocking in that respect with bulk whingers and dobbers. "OH, you can't say that! Moderators!"

Organic blogs are best. Blogs that are a bit like life wherein you meet all kinds.

I've certainly deleted comments or parts thereof, but no matter how objectionable a commenter I've never banned anyone.

Big Ramifications

Try adding a comment to Andrew Bolt's blog that's slightly critical of his ideas. I reckon I averaged an 80% not-getting-published rate. It was just a farking echo chamber.

And any naysayer who did get thru was set upon by his nine loyal Nazgul commenters.

For that reason I've probably only looked at it 10 times in the last 6 years. Now I'm ashamed to say I even read it. Was it always that bad? Is his blog getting more crazy or am I just reading it thru a fresh pair of eyes?

Same goes for Tim Blair. Less not-getting-published, but more loyal Dwimmerlaiks.

Dwimmerlaik

Recognise.

Big Ramifications

Hmmm, his blog's only just about to turn 6.

Let's rephrase that to "I've probably only looked at it 9 times in the last 4.8 years."

[Hello, Big Dwimmer]

David Barry

I usually can't be bothered wading into the comments at Bolt's blog (I might have about 10 comments there ever), but I've always had my comment posted, whether I agreed with the Bolt line or not.

Certainly most lefty comments early in a thread get pounced upon by the hordes though.

Big Ramifications

Maybe if I'd left out "lick my balls, Bolt"?

m0nty

Why leave out your main argument?

Lou

Blimey, I've just read through some of this and I'm kinda confused. I'll stop now.

Big Ramifications

Yeah it was all PUTTHELOTIONINTHEFUCKINGBASKET! for a while there.

patard with a vengeance

I'm gonna meet you one day Yobbo

Yobbo

oh goody

patard with a vengeance

lol

Mike Tyson

Patard, when I'm ready I'm going to rip out your heart and feed it to you. My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat your children. Praise be to Allah.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)