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

All I can think about is those poor bloody diggers over in Iraq sharing a base with a few hundred undeservedly cocky bloody poms. I mean, walking around with loaded guns and stuff all day, they must be showing remarkable restraint. I'm sure a jury would acquit...

Bah. I would rather that the 20 run over would haunt Kaspa rather than a loose shot after the best part of an hour's batting. The latter is not his area and he was punching above his weight, the former ...

Allow me to edify your readers on one important law of the game:

Law 27.9

Umpire's decision
An umpire may alter his decision provided that such alteration is made promptly. This apart, an umpire's decision, once made, is final.

I think the fingers are being ponted in the wrong direction. I tell ya, I think I'm getting the hang of this hidden meaning thing...

Mr Z got it, by Jove. It's not down to Kaspro getting out that we lost, it's the fact he bowled tripe early on, and also that the Aussies batted like clowns, and that Ponting sent England in.

But! Someone cheated somewhere, I tells ya!


"No umpire (not even Billy Bowden, who didn't have much of a Test) could conceivably be blamed for missing that, and it is now simply what it seemed to be, an interesting irrelevance after the event."

An interesting irrelevance hey... AN INTERESTING FARKING IRRELEVANCE!!! You have got to be joking. Can you imagine the Poms and in particular their tabloids going off if that was one of their batsmen?? ROBBED! CHEATS! would have been the headlines.

But we're better than that.... aren't we???

No, we are not. We wuz robbed!

But seriously, though. If the Aussies were bowling and that decision was denied the bowler would be very unhappy indeed.

However. I'm antsy at the moment and I reckon if it was us bowling, the way the weight of decisions have gone so far, it WOULD have been turned down.

But I am 1) paranoid; and 2) bitter.

In a healthy way.

Well looking at your other comments its about time before the 3rd Test to dedicate a whole post to giving the Poms the biggest mozz you can muster. I am on board (England will win the 3rd Test "London To A Brick") and I am sure you can get enough support up for a decent one.

Some caveats to the overall mozz could include:

1. We will continue to recieve the short end of the stick from the umpires when it comes to 50/50 decisions, and they will never give the opposition out LBW for the whole match.

2. Flintoff will continue his Botham like form into this test and "look comfortable" (the two most powerful words a "mozz savant" can conjure.

3. Vaughan will get over his lack of technique and return to form in this test. He too will "look comfortable"

Any extra caveats can be included where required...

I can already see it. Each and every batsmen in the England order is described thus "He's looking in great touch and is set for a big score." "Looks set" is another solid mozz.

I deally, though, an England mozz must come from and English commentator.

By the way, was Mo Matthews trying to mozz the Aussies, or what?!? He's gone mad!

Mo is, and has always been, insane. His tie is a deadset shocker - which I am sure he has deliberately done for effect (to prove how grooovy he is - yeah yeah).

I am a bit non-plussed by Deano, Mo and the pom. They look uncomfortable with each other which I find compelling yet when I think about what they have said (the analysis) it makes no overall sense.

One day Mo is saying that Giles is bowling "flying saucers", the next he predicts Giles is going to get a bagfull. The pom brought him to account on that to which Mo made some nonsensical reply.

Never heard of Mozz Tony. Up here we call it the "Mocca" or "Jonah" (as in Jonah and the whale). Don't know the etymology of mocca but. Moccachino perhaps?

We can no longer say " Bloody cheats those umpires, blatantly siding with the home team " With the advent of neutral umps it is now " Bloody incompetant twits ". Bowden may well be a clown ( and that's an understatement ) but on THAT decision he cannot be blamed. It looked to one and all like a glove through to that OTHER clown behind the stumps, Jones. I would have given it and that says it all.

Not sure about the Stumpy Patel comparison Tony, i reckon Jones makes Patel look like Alan Knott. But of course it's the sheer weight of runs that keeps Jones in the Pom team isn't it ?

Nice to have a decently competitive game for a change. Right, Flute and Adsy?

Ponting won the toss, sent them into bat and our fate was sealed. Period.

Ponting can barely manage a punch up in Kings Cross let alone a test cricket team. Gilchrist or Warne should get a go. You have to have a bloody good reason to send a team into bat.

Shaun Tate is a God.

I believe that Billy Bowden was copping stick in Un Zud for favouring Australia during their last tour. Is he making up for it now?

I personally don't have a problem with close run contests, in fact I like them very much. But they tend to be much.... MUCH better if you are on the winning side!!

I hate them because we are rarely on the winning side.

I hear you Tony. The last tight one I remember us winning was that one dayer against the Windies in 95 or 96 (Bevan hitting a 4 on the last ball to win). Tests? Can't fink of one.

(Now I hear the talk is that they may drop Katich for Watson - WTF!!!!1!!)

That one dayer was on New Years Day 1996 at the SCG. The World Cups in 1999 and 2003 had some great close wins by the Aussies. And we beat the WI in a top game in the 1995 WC. Also we won a close one in the WC semi-final in 1987.

But they are only ODIs.

Test wise, we chased down a difficult target against Sarth Efrica in 1997. And also bowled out Sri Lanka to win a tight one over there in 1992.

Other than that, the Aussies torture their fans in tight test matches. Bastards.

That dropping Katich for Watson is to have a third fasty if they also bring in McGill for Kaspro or Dizzy.

I do believe these were Bill Lawry's exact words when Bevo hit the winning 4, mentioned above. Billy Birmingham couldn't have said it better:

"That's four!
That's victory for Australia!!!
What a hero!
What an athlete!"

Bill doing the final overs of a close game, who woulda thunk it?

Bill and Tony always seem to get the start and finish of play. Bill has sometimes been heard to say after the first ball of an ODI is allowed to pass through to the keeper "It's all happening here."

They are the two who add excitement. Personally I reckon Grieg is an absolute nightmare. Something he proved yet again on Sunday night.


I guess I'm judging Watson on his form in Australia (IMHO - Crap) without seeing his form in Blighty.

Also, with Lee potentially injured I think Tait might have to come in as a 3rd pace bowler.

Maybe Martyn can be the token medium pacer. Or Ponting. (Yes, I am joking).

Yeah, Watson's done nothing yet, but by bringing him in they get one player who can nominally average out the batting loss of Katich and the bowling loss of Kaspro. It gives them a preferred balance if they pick the two spinners.

I have no problem with Lee being replaced by Tait, although from what I hear he's a bit erratic. But at least he can take wickets.

I wouldn't mind Tait being let lose on the Poms. They can't have seen him much so far, and from what I've seen of the tour England are not at all surprised by our present eleven who they've obviously put a lot of thought into. Might catch them off guard.

I have to apologise for making it sound like ubersportingpudit around here. After the weekend, most of my (albiet tiny) thought processes have revovled around cricket.

Maybe thinking about the third test stops the thoughts of the second test.

There's nothing wrong with filling this place with sport. It's all good, in fact.

I enjoyed going to work yesterday (despite only a couple hours sleep) because I wasn't thinking about the cricket.

The trouble with thinking about the third test, though, is that I'm pessimistic.

I'm not overly pessimistic, but hopefully enough that the cricket gods (or demons going by the last result) will see it and grant me the opposite of what I expect.

My pessimism is countered by the following observations:
1. We've seen what happens when the Aust batsmen do not do what they are paid to do.
2. The English second innings batting showed us what happens when our bowlers do what they are paid to (ie keep an end tight while Warnie is bowling at the other). Well, except for Flintoff.
3. The Aust second innings tail end performance showed that the English bowlers, while fierce, lack a bit of ticker if the pressure is on.

So, if the batters bat sensibly, bowlers concentrate on line and length, and we look to pressure the opposition, we might win.

Come back Tugger ... all is forgiven!

Sent an email to a mate today moaning about a lack of Tuggerliness. That's why I like Hussey.

Ha ha! Excellent!

I must say, as an England supporter, that I'm somewhat astonished to see supporters of what clearly remains comfortably the best Test side in the world panicking about us.

As umpiring decisions go, these things always even themselves out. No-one is perfect, and mistakes will happen. I personally believe it was 'not out', but I'm not going to fight over it!

You folks will win at Old Trafford. England always, always, play poorly there. Even if we win, it's less convincingly than at other grounds. Further, I'm told it looks like a bowler's wicket, which gives you lot the firm upper hand.


Cricket game thingy with expert commentary.

Panic, Steve? Read this.

The comments to this entry are closed.