mavric41
State Vice-Captain
BUT IT WAS IN THE RULES. (I agree with you)social said:Trevor Chappell - underarm.
Lowest point in Australian sports history.
BUT IT WAS IN THE RULES. (I agree with you)social said:Trevor Chappell - underarm.
Lowest point in Australian sports history.
So was leg theory 50 years previouslymavric41 said:BUT IT WAS IN THE RULES. (I agree with you)
Maybe if they hadn't worked Trevor's brother into such a state it'd never have happened?social said:Trevor Chappell - underarm.
Lowest point in Australian sports history.
Hardly anyone saw that - 4000-odd people IIRR.zinzan12 said:Anyone see Astle's Double against England at Jade Stadium .....That would hace been something to see live !!
Wasn't, quite, as hot as Lord's in May 2002.BoyBrumby said:I was at that game too; third day for me tho. Very sunny for May & I got quite badly burnt, despite the factor 15!
You were at the ground on all 5 days?I guess (grudgingly) its Murali's 16 wickets @ The Oval in 98 for me.
Actually no, 4th & 5th days only (had a pee next to Bob Willis on the 4th day!)Richard said:You were at the ground on all 5 days?
I was only there on the first (on which he took just 2 wickets).
Never know, the 22-year-old you might have been sitting next to the nearly-13-year-old me.
The fact that you spout crap like Katich can't catch on the basis of one drop is as ludicrous as the tripe you post about the whole theory in the first place...Richard said:So amazing, and so wouldn't-have-happened-if-Simon-Katich-could-catch.
Wow, that was flame bait and you straight batted...Richard said:Katich certainly isn't the best catcher you'll see, anyway.
The point is he couldn't catch in that instance and it made Sehwag look like he'd batted a hell of a lot better than he did.
You kind of deflated Jono's moment, though.Richard said:Katich certainly isn't the best catcher you'll see, anyway.
The point is he couldn't catch in that instance and it made Sehwag look like he'd batted a hell of a lot better than he did.
Really wasn't any need for that comment in the context of the thread.Richard said:So amazing, and so wouldn't-have-happened-if-Simon-Katich-could-catch.
really, that many where there???Richard said:Hardly anyone saw that - 4000-odd people IIRR.
Saw it on TV, though - never-to-be-forgotten.
it wasnt in the rules - that was the problem. like most cricket rules it was originally a gentlmanly agreement, guess they never figured australians would play the gamemavric41 said:BUT IT WAS IN THE RULES. (I agree with you)