Ian Healy's air violin brings the memories flooding back. What's your favourite cricket gaffe?
X. Tony 'Par Avion' Grieg
L. Ian 'Fuckin' Chappell
C. Dean 'Bomber' Jones
D. Ian 'Boob Boo' Healy
« IT'S HIT 'IM RIGHT IN THE DRUMSTICK! | Main | MOVE ALONG ... »
The comments to this entry are closed.
After they won the toss (again - that's 5-1 this series) and batted, get your money on the Poms.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 14:44
Get your money on the weather, I never wanna hear another Sydneysider blag off about Melbournes 4-in-1 seasons again.
Posted by: Vindicate | 11 February 2007 at 15:42
Just took a look at the Sydney weather radar. Seems rain will set in in a few hours time so it might be one of those shambolic shortened affairs at best.
Posted by: graboy | 11 February 2007 at 15:54
At this rate we'll need saving by the rain.
What a pathetic day it is when I write that.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 16:28
A Hoy? What sort of talk is that? Surely it's a HOIK which becomes a LOYK.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 16:30
Favorite Cricket Gaffe?
On air : Warney defending drug and bookie use on Parky.
Off air: Spanky's private lessons.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 16:47
Those aren't gaffes, they're mission statements.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 17:10
Mission statements.. very good Tony.
Okay, we're doing better then the other night but its still not good enough.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 17:12
Drizzle be dammed! Oz to shellack a 48 over English total by the 32nd. I'm betting my next beer on it.
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 17:15
Blimey, Charlie Brown, go easy on those beers...
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 17:20
Dean Jones' gaffe was the best, anyway.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 17:23
Warney's web site will bring him into the modern age - with e-mission statements.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 18:06
Heals just said that it beggars belief that the umpires don't have a couple of balls in their pockets, ready to go. Or words to that effect.
Did Healy take a couple of quick balls to the head at the end of his career, or is it just something that happens when he's in the box? Ooh, saucy...
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 18:19
Heals is trying to disguise his gaffe with dumbness.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 18:26
New Best Gaffe :
That reverse sweep...
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 18:39
New best Gaffe:
That run out... nice work Nixon.
Posted by: Vindicate | 11 February 2007 at 18:42
Can you imagine being sledged by a bloke called Nixon?
Okay, a better performance by our guys in the second half of the English innings.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 18:48
The only way that hack Nixon will make the record books.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 18:59
There was a guy on The Einstein Factor whose special subject was The Ashes. He was hopeless (700 out of a possible 1700 makes 800 worth of gaffes) and a smart-arse tool to boot.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 19:01
Fark'n Flatty.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 19:31
Ball's swinging around, Sydney chase at night, Straya no chance.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 19:33
Tony, upon seeing an oriental bride in a park ajoining a ground: "do you think she's been flown in from somewhere?"
Posted by: Carrot | 11 February 2007 at 19:41
Tony.T on hearing Tony.G commentating on Channel Nine: "do you think he's been flown in from somewhere?"
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:17
Revised target - 227 off 41.
Shafted by DuckyLoo? Dunno.
A side bet says the game get's washed out after the first ball of the 21st over with us one run behind the rate.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:29
Deja fucking Vu. Gilly out. Game over.
Wonder what's on Fox Movies.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:30
1996 - losing the WC final to SL.
1997 - losing the 1 st Test to the poms.
1998 - losing in India.
2001 - losing a Test in England.
2001 - That series in India.
2002 - NZ tour of Aus.
2003 - India at Adelaide, and really, that whole series.
2006 - SA chasing 435 or so.
2007 - losing the CB series to Pies and Fluffers.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 20:38
Foyle's War is about who killed a sheep. That's the way it looks, anyway.
There's also a guest actor called Gawn. Ironic, that, given Clarke's now out.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:39
I've expunged any memories of 05.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 20:40
0 what?
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:40
Yep, I'm now watching the marvellous creatures of the Great Asian Steppe. At least the prey is putting up a fight. Jersey swap during the rain delay. Cricketer of the Year, my hairy ort!
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 20:41
You've got to go for Greig don't you?
Posted by: Adam 1.0 | 11 February 2007 at 20:46
Rain Man is on Movie Greats. I'm counting on him living up to his name before the 20th over. Counting - geddit.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:48
You know things are grim when Flinty starts doing that silly dance.
The way the season is petering to a conclusion you might think England are a better side. Farcical, I know.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:57
Maybe Punter will use the CB loss as motivation to charge through the WC undefeated?
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 20:57
Text from brother: "Paper Cut needs to step up." I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 20:58
Aussies are foxing it, Nick. Pulling a fast one. Lying doggo. Selling the dummy.
They are.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 21:01
Ian Chappell: "Andrew Flintoff ought to say 'I wish the better bowlers would give us a challenge'."
Loves coaches, does Chappelli.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 21:10
Who can blame him?
What's Andrew Flintoff's favourite song?
"I can't stand the rain".
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 21:18
Look, if they win, fair suck of the sav. Still praying for rain but. Doesn't look good on the old radar out to the east off sidder-knee.
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 21:20
Aussies collapsing against the no. 7 ranked ODI team. Yarps destoying the no. 3 ranked team. Yarps paying $7 to win the WC. Hmm.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 21:21
Yeah, I folded like a cheap suit. The plight of the Tibetan fox didn't hold as much taut anticipation as the fate of the alleged numero uno cricket outfit on da globe.
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 21:22
Ok, I confess - it was ME, I did it!
Mr.Vindicate in the loungeroom with the mozz about 5 mins after the poms cleaned up the kiwis, the old man asked me how the final series works:
"Best of three matches, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide... but we won't need that last one."
Posted by: Vindicate | 11 February 2007 at 21:25
Do note the judicious use of "alleged". As in 'the alleged cricket captain led his alleged team of cricketing superstars to an allegedly remarkable and magnanimous victory'. This can also be applied to the soap-dodgers.
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 21:26
The punters have been on drugs lately. (Bit like the Poms - get out the swabs.) Australia were strong faves after England batted. Madness. Precisely how many teams have chased down 250 in Sydney at night? Precisely about not many.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 21:27
Yeah, hmmm indeed. You'd be feeling brave betting on the Aussies on this form. But it's a long way to Barbados yet.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 21:31
Look at the bats! Fatcat wasn't the only thing thinner in 1984!!
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 21:31
Bastards! They're removing the covers so I'll never find out who won that game against the Windies.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 21:35
Well, you were right, Vindi.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 21:37
I don't spose more rain is too much to ask for? We need 211 off 33 overs according to Ducky Lewis.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 21:47
DuckyLoo are English, aren't they.
Thought so.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 21:49
Bah! I've had it with following these provincial competitions. Waste of bloody time.
Posted by: Mr Z | 11 February 2007 at 21:55
Can anyone provide a compelling argument why Watto is in this team?
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 21:55
Bill and The Dick keep talking about how good Paper Cut is, but I'm yet to see it.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:00
I wonder if Foyle found out who killed the sheep.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:03
Paper Cut is okay. Not sure he can get us out of this shit hole but it's not his fault we're in this mess.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:04
Not his fault he got out to that catch either.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:05
As long as Elementary Man...oops, spoke too soon. We're screwed.
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 22:05
I'm sure he can't.
Blinder from Dalrymple.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:06
I can't remember an Englishman taking a catch that good ever.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:08
The Pies in the first one-dayer in 2005, maybe, but that's about it. Strauss in that Test series took a nice one, too.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:10
Oh, Colly's was pretty good.. yeah, granted.
At least we've found out we're fucked before the World Cup started. Lot better to find out now then in April. Meanwhile the Yarpies are making pies out of Pakistan.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:12
Watto is a genetic freak. He has...
Michael Clarke's back.
Steve Waugh's hamstrings.
Michael Bevan's gym obsession.
Tubby Taylor's form streak.
Greg Matthew's temprament.
and Kim Hughes will to win.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 22:13
Brad Hogg has played four tests! Who'd've thunk it?
Posted by: Carrot | 11 February 2007 at 22:16
If we start favourite in the WC, the punters are mad.
Speaking of betting. What's the bet One Day England never play this well again. Ever. Talk about everything going right at the right time.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:16
I'd love to have an accountant who could wangle me some financial returns based on Duckworth-Lewis algorithms. Let's see, reduce the batting teams overs by 17 and revise the total required by 35. Not that I'm complaining, we have been woeful, but this DL calculator needs some serious revision.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 22:18
Don't forget Tone, you have pointed out prior to the last World Cup I think, that Oz have never won a WC going in on a winning streak. I believe you were right that all Oz WC victories were preceded by extremely poor form.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 22:21
The trouble with DuckyLoo is that it's better than what it took over from. The old systems (for want of a better word) were a disaster.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:21
It's designed to punish teams like us who lose early wickets. Which it has done.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:22
Ohh, silly Hoggy.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:24
That's true up to a point, Pat, but my calcs were based on the Tri Series results the year before the World Cup. Last time before Sorth Efrica we were on a roll.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:24
Ugh. I hate it when we lose games, doesn't matter if they are group games, finals, or whatever. I just don't like losing.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:27
Your stat counter just ticked past 800,000.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:28
Damn! So there's no silver lining.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 22:28
Hodge just ticked past the pavillion.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:29
I now pronounce us officially screwed.
Posted by: Vindicate | 11 February 2007 at 22:30
Ditto. It doesn't matter that the Aussies are treating these matches as practice matches, losing bites.
By the way, this is what Pat was referring to in his "winning streaks" comment.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:30
Lest anyone think I'm about to get all charitable and magnamanious. Balls to youze.
THE ONLY REASON England have won this latest in a long line of tedious Tri Series tournies is because they keep winning the toss (except for Friday) and making us bat second in difficult conditions.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:37
Hang on, if we were as good as we expect us to be we'd still have scored these runs.
Try telling Punter the only reason we lost is coz he's a lousy tosser!
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:40
Rain dance worked. Too late to save us. I had us screwed some time back.
Posted by: CB | 11 February 2007 at 22:41
As a suffering cleaner pronounced when the Beastie Boys finally played a decent tune (Sabotage) during an extended jam, "That's it! That's the shit!"
When I go to sleep tonight the only hope I have to hold on to is those words "Far as I'm concerned, the Aussies can tinker with the formula all they like, just as long as they win the only tournament that matters to me - The World Cup." I'll be holding on tight sobbing in to my pillow. Someone please hug me.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 22:42
Get on your knees and pray that Smith is not holding the Cup in 8 months, or whenever the Bloat Cup finishes.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 22:42
Nup. One Day cricket is ALL about who wins the toss - especially in S'Siddey.
Oh, and I suppose batting, bowling and fielding have their small parts to play.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:44
Question: Who will be the first journo to shitcan the rest/rotation business?
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:47
Question: Have we played well in ANY of the one-dayers?
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:48
So your money is on the Yarps too, then Tony? Tossers abound in Yarpland.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 22:52
Not really- not one full 100 over performance.
Posted by: Scott Wickstein | 11 February 2007 at 22:54
Christ... rub it in whydoncha, get just enough break in the weather to make it a match, but not enough to give us even a sniff of a chance.
Oh well fuckit, if we played a bit better we wouldn't have ended up in this position anyway.
Posted by: Vindicate | 11 February 2007 at 22:56
At seven bucks Sorth Efrica have got to be a good bet. They'd be a dead set certainty if they didn't have to win a semi-final.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 22:56
But really, and with not a sliver of hindsight heroism, Hogg and Watson should not have been selected. Hodge shouldn't be there either.
IMO if there is no fair dinkum all rounder then don't pretend and just go with a specialist.
Hogg out for Magilla
Watson out for B Lee
Tait or Clark for B Lee
Jaques in for Hodges
Or they should have stuck with White for Watson.
The selctions were dumb.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 22:58
The worst thing about all the dumb selections is that I can't see the makings of a WC winning side from all the players trialled. There are four or five certain picks and then a whole line of maybes.
Posted by: Tony.T | 11 February 2007 at 23:10
What have we learnt?
1. Must take at least 6 wickets to limit a score - 7 if playing NZ or SA.
2. Tait is useful in ODIs.
3. Bracken, McGrath, Tait = good bowling, 30% of team now poor fielders.
4. White can't bowl.
5. Watto can bat (a bit).
6. Haydos and Gilly are human, and fallible.
7. As is Hussey.
8. Clarke can bowl.
9. Symonds is the second most important player in the team.
10. ODIs are a lottery.
Posted by: nick | 11 February 2007 at 23:14
This says it all:
M Clarke 10 matches 33 overs 4 wickets Avge.40.25 economy 4.87
Hogg 3 matches 26.3 overs 2 wickets Avge 57.5 Economy 4.33
You could easily play Clarke for Hogg and be on a win win because you get to bring in another batsman.
I reckon we have the makings of a WC team if the selectors and Punter forget about having an all-rounder. We simply don't have one.
Use Hussey, Clarke and Punter to share an 10 over spell. Mix it up, slow it down. The kiwis and lankans have been winning games for yonks based on the same principle and we have much better players than either of them.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 23:24
Geez, good old Channel 9 Perth. Australia lost so they switch straight to some US import shit. WIN showed the presentation; Channel 9 didn't. Good old Australia - world sport's most graceless winners and most churlish losers. As evidenced from the postings above, of course England didn't win this series, Australia lost it ... We'd better practise our excuses for the World Cup, eh?
Posted by: John | 11 February 2007 at 23:24
Points 1, 3 , 8 & 9 are very well made. Point 8 though Clarke showed when he first rocked on to the ODI scene in India. I believe he even got 7 for at one stage bowling spin against the Indians.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 23:26
Yes John, England were simply awesome throughout the entire competition leaving NZ and Oz in her wake. You truly had the best and most consistent team and have served notice to the world that England is a force to be reckoned with come World Cup.
Posted by: pat | 11 February 2007 at 23:37
Pat, England were poor, and on the evidence of the series as a whole, they should not have been in the finals. Australia ARE the best in the world, of that there is no doubt. I'm not spruiking England at all. You are also making the assumption that I follow England and that I am happy that they won. My point is that the Australian media (and many Australians) are pretty churlish about losing.
Posted by: John | 11 February 2007 at 23:55
The Aussie one day side are showing glimpses of the arrogance that derailed the test side during the 2005 Ashes. Well, probably the players AND the selectors. After the great first 75% of the series they dropped Camo White, brought in Hogg and stuffed around with the fast bowling lineup and look what happened.
Of course losing Symonds was a bit of a blow but why change what was going well? You'd only do that if you were arrogant about either the opposition or not caring about the competition. The batting lineup early doors of Gilchrist, Hayden, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Symonds, White, Lee, Bracken, S.Clark and McGrath is a World Cup winning lineup in every way - bat down to 9 or 10 pretty much and have 4 quicks, 1 medium pacer and 3 spin options. If Symonds is no good then bring in Hodge to shore up the batting and you still retain his offspin if things get dire.
Watson is a golden boy hack who hasn't shown nearly enough to be included in the squad.
Posted by: Adsy | 12 February 2007 at 00:01
All credit to England. To come back from the absolute caning they were getting handed to them and win this series is a monumental effort. Good on them.
The churlishness is not for them but for certain Oz performances but mostly, in fact IMO all, to the selectors. Watson hadn't played a game in the series and Hogg only two yet they both waltzed into the finals. The selectors obsession with Watson is unfathomable. There is simply no way Oz should have lost the finals.
This English ODI team is pathetic at best and if they seriously think they have turned a corner and are now playing great cricket then they would be like someone winning at the pokies and thinking they have now found some great financial skills.
I actually think their Test team deserved merit and have shown that they have a basis for a good Test team once Vaughan and Jones return. The one dayers however are a joke. This is their day, a miracle, and deserved for their bravery and self belief which is beyond doubt so I hope they get to enjoy and savour it.
Posted by: pat | 12 February 2007 at 00:10
"This is their day, a miracle"
Three miracles in a week it is then...not even Jesus had that kind of run of form.
Posted by: Russell Allen | 12 February 2007 at 10:16
It's MBE time.
Posted by: Churlish of Richmond | 12 February 2007 at 10:47