Ponting accuses England of gamesmanship

[GIMH]

 

[Redbacks]

****ed off that Australia were winning so often cricket writers went the next level and developed a method to neutralise their disappointment (and appeal to their readers) via an attack on the defining spirit in which the contests were won. Also to point out where the lines had been crossed. So suddenly if Australia attempt to take it seriously and come back to the pack you find "Nature abhors a vacuum" and other sides will also push the boundaries (because it appears to work and nobody usually cares what the losing team does). And now we see the classic case where 'ye olde' comparison trap is used to divert attention away from the actual situation and point the finger back at Ponting for pontification (similar behaviour to the original expressed through different means) . Talk about having your cake and eating it too:



I don't expect Aus to take this seriously for all that long, especially if other sides take the p*** out of us.

 

[zaremba]

I don't expect Aus to take this seriously for all that long, especially if other sides take the p*** out of us.

I agree. Hauritz's comments seem specifically designed to draw the sting from the whole thing.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Loving how a minority of Aussie fans here are working themselves up into a lather of righteous indignation.

Like this:



Erm...

I'd have done the same - Hauritz | Cricket News | The Ashes - England v Australia 2009 | Cricinfo.com

Last time I checked Hauritz wasn't the captain

God forbid it ever becomes the case...

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, you're right: he has every right to say it. And it's also true that he has every right to lecture everyone about the Spirit of Cricket.

And we have every right to criticise his barefaced cheek.

Of course you do. You can hardly go around talking about the cricket.

Just saw The Chaser's visit to Lords online tonight. Was a funny clip.

 

[Top_Cat]

Two things to bear in mind about this whole thing;

1) As has been said, Aus had plenty of overs at the last pair and couldn't get them.
2) 98 overs were planned for the day and 98 were bowled. The stalling for time didn't affect how many overs the Aussies were allowed, it just meant there would be no bonus overs.

The whole thing is just diverting from the fact that Aus should have won the Test pretty easily and didn't because they weren't quite good enough.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Two things to bear in mind about this whole thing;

1) As has been said, Aus had plenty of overs at the last pair and couldn't get them.
2) 98 overs were planned for the day and 98 were bowled. The stalling for time didn't affect how many overs the Aussies were allowed, it just meant there would be no bonus overs.

The whole thing is just diverting from the fact that Aus should have won the Test pretty easily and didn't because they weren't quite good enough.

 

[zaremba]

Just saw The Chaser's visit to Lords online tonight. Was a funny clip.

Who's The Chaser?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I don't think Aus had the chance to timewaste at OT in 2005 - the last 15 overs would have taken beyond an hour with seamers on - different case entirely with twirlers on.

FWIW, anyone who wouldn't do anything to ensure that they faced the minimum number of overs as a batting side playing for a draw in the last hour is a muppet. I'd do the same in a school game (although as we have to bowl 20 in the last hour, it's very rarely the case it comes down to that - and it's more often a case of playing it the other way around: namely getting the spinners in before the last hour and then stopping worrying about time when you let the quicker boys attack, knowing the last hour can now take 80-90 minutes...

 

[Chubb]

Who's The Chaser?

It is an Aussie comedy show, on BBC 4 prior to Flight of the Conchords. They do various comedic stunts such as seeing how many NY corporate headquarters they can get thrown out of in a day or going door-to-door trying to sell spam email products.

 

[marc71178]

His claiming that he sent him out to tell Monty Panesar and James Anderson how much time was left... why would he need to do that?

Well seeing as the commentators and spectators didn't know what was going on in relation to time rather than overs, how did Monty and Jimmy?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Well seeing as the commentators and spectators didn't know what was going on in relation to time rather than overs, how did Monty and Jimmy?

And why would you need to stop play just to tell them? Either way, it wasn't going to affect the way they bat.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

And why would you need to stop play just to tell them? Either way, it wasn't going to affect the way they bat.

Of course they needed to be told. When the minimum overs were down to 2.5 they might have thought they'd saved the game when it fact Australia were bowling more than the minimum.

 

[zaremba]

Of course they needed to be told. When the minimum overs were down to 2.5 they might have thought they'd saved the game when it fact Australia were bowling more than the minimum.

... particularly with the crowd celebrating like we were already safe.

 

[GIMH]

My kid brother loves to wind me up, but he's gone too far this time...

(we have different dads hence different surnames)

 

[Burgey]

No-one's saying it's a defence. What it is is two things: first, a mitigating factor which puts the gravity of the offence into proper perspective, and secondly, it's a perfectly legitimate reply to the little hairy two-headed rat who sees fit to slag you off for it whilst preaching about the Spirit of Cricket. Hauritz was big enough to have admitted that Australia would have done the same thing.

Actually, Hauritz said he'd do the same thing.
Honestly, this is grist to my mill of England hating, and will be another example for me to rant about in a few years time, but in reality Ponting will have moved on and if I were him I'd be loving all the frothing my comments had caused.

TMS thougjt the tactics were dire as well. Probably not a drama if they come out once. Twice in 2 overs a bit rich though imoM

 

[pasag]

Still a non-issue two days later...

 

[Son Of Coco]

Well seeing as the commentators and spectators didn't know what was going on in relation to time rather than overs, how did Monty and Jimmy?

You could just ask the umpire if it was a concern. As someone above said though, that wouldn't make them aware of the match situation itself regarding whether they saved the match or not.

 

[Redbacks]

Two things to bear in mind about this whole thing;

1) As has been said, Aus had plenty of overs at the last pair and couldn't get them.
2) 98 overs were planned for the day and 98 were bowled. The stalling for time didn't affect how many overs the Aussies were allowed, it just meant there would be no bonus overs.

The whole thing is just diverting from the fact that Aus should have won the Test pretty easily and didn't because they weren't quite good enough.

The shoe is on the other foot now. Maybe like we have seen from opponents in the past, we can enjoy a procession of waterworks autobiographies from our current team to come out in the future, when really it was really only ability that cost us the matches, not a few minor moments here and there blown way out of proportion by the mob.

 

[Athlai]

I was a little disappointed with the Poms in the first Test. Flintoff has to tie his shoe halfway through the second over after the break? **** off you did that on purpose.

Australia should have won, but the tailenders, Flintoff and Collingwood deserved England to get the draw.