Comments on: the conversation

By: 2nd Slip

2nd Slip — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:42:27 +0000

Yeah there was no “there were two teams out there but only one was playing cricket” toy out of pram chucking tantrum crap like we had from that Anus Kumble and his team of tantrum throwing twats.

By: Jamie64

Jamie64 — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:22:50 +0000

I notive that Australia hasn’t threatened to pull out of the tour like a bhunch a spoilt little private school brats.

By: raj

raj — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:55:09 +0000

Matt, cry away, friend. Whine away. More, please!

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 07:53:11 +0000

To those of you bagging the Ricky hard for being hypocrites- all the Aussies seem to want is consistency. I don’t believe Strauss was cheating and I have no problem with him appealing hard – it’s a test match, he probably caught it, the right decision was probably made – you beauy! But if you refer the Hairitz catch then Strauss’s which looked more marginal should also have been referred – alternately refer neither and give both out -whatever…
Indian supporters, lotta haters of Ponting here – lots of couching him as a hypocrite – but I think he’s just excercising the commonsense some of you seem to lack… If both teams agree to taking the fielders word – fine, if they don’t fine- if Hauritz’s catch is referred fine- but when Stauss’s isn’t and Ricky is a bit cranky- what an asshole. Pardon? At the risk of being petty, 1+1 = 2, not Ricky trussing Ishant Sharma to the railroad track while sodomising Sachins pet chiuhaha.

By: Captain Cranky

Captain Cranky — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:34:14 +0000

The real test here, gents, will be if Australia throws a massive tantrum, threatens to pull out of the series unless the umpire is replaced – and get their way. THEN the shoe will be on the other foot.

By: Cricket Tragic

Cricket Tragic — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:10:02 +0000

@patgarret

I’m not criticizing Punter for not taking the word of the fieldsman….

Even I wouldn’t do that, even if my whole life depended on it..

However, wt bugs me the most about Punter is the fact that, when Australia is fielding, he expects the opposition batsmen to take his word for it….does sound ‘hippocritical’ doesn’t it?

By: NJ

NJ — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:13:23 +0000

Schadenfreude, chaps. It’s natural to want someone (Ricky Ponting) to be punished because of general (and deserved) dislike, but that doesn’t mean that it’s right. Unless Australia win this test, there’s always going to be some belief that the umpires have negatively affected the outcome of the match. Sure, it happens all the time in cricket, but that doesn’t mean it should stay that way.

By: Apples

Apples — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 23:43:35 +0000

Samir Chopra, that is Gold. Spot on.

We have to take the word of the fieldsman who takes the “catch”. If they take it on the bounce or in front of the stumps, i.e. cheat, so be it. They will have to wear that lable. We’ve all caught jack balls and you know it when you have

Until they get something like that pitch cam thingy that will clearly and conclusively show what is where, technology should not come into it.

However, when it comes to no balls, ………………..

By: patgarrett

patgarrett — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:10:03 +0000

@ Cricket Tragic

I can hardly how why Punter can be criticized for not “trusting the decision of the fielder” when we have incidents like today’s. The whole point of this is that fielders can’t be trusted, so use the technology.