• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** Australia in England (The Ashes)

King_Ponting

International Regular
vic_orthdox said:
What I love about him is his massive front arm. No wonder he generates so much pace, he gets the most out of that limb.

Dunno about the bolt through the chin though...
Its this new "punk" uprising..... dissapointing imo
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pratyush said:
The more I think of it, the more I feel Australia should play 5 bowlers in the 4th test. Bowling wins test matches and to get 20 wickets a line up of McGrath, Gillespie(before he went out of form), Lee/Kasporwicz and Warne looks strong.

But a line up of a dicey McGrath, Lee, Warne and Tait does not.

Should Australia go with MacGill despite the curator saying it wont support the spinners or Kasporwicz as a 5th bowler? If the Aussies feel the pitch has some thing for the spinners, I would have chosen MacGill as the 5th bowler.

highly unlikely the Aussies will go with 5 bowlers though.
A good point. This series has shown that Australia have a complete lack of depth of fast bowling now days. For years they have had this awsomne 4 bowlers atack and now that is coming and in the case of gillespies seems to have come too an end Australia are suddenly crying out for an allrounder. mr symonds in soon i am sure
 

Pothas

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
England must now do what they didnt do in the last two tests and make a massive total
 
Last edited:

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
Dunno what all the fuss is about, IIRC Aravinda stood out of his crease against (Cork?) the swinging ball a few years back, and Stewart was trying to run him out every time. Don't remember anyone chewing about it at the time, if you bat out of your crease you're there to be run out for me.
 

greg

International Debutant
Isolator said:
Now I Know What Happened In the Last Over of the Third Test
-----------------------------------------------------------
(aka "Angus Fraser's Imaginary Immoral Run-Out Situation")

I haven't been reading this thread much, so I dunno if someone's already done this, but they were showing the highlights of the last day's play here, and this is what really happened in that last over (it was the first ball):

Harmison bowls one down the legside, McGarth looks for bye, Jones gathers, rolls, throws (AT STUMPS), misses, ball gathered by Hoggard, but McGarth gets back in his crease.

NOTE:
1) There was no run-out opportunity for Hoggard, because McGarth got back in his crease.
2) Jones was trying to hit the stumps, and wasn't merely tossing the ball back to the bowler, as some maniacs here seem to think.

In conclusion, Angus Fraser is a load of crap.
On the second ball Harmison bowled a full ball which narrowly missed the offstump. McGrath stood where he was staring forward wondering why he missed it. Jones caught the ball held it for a couple of seconds (does that constitute the ball being dead?) - and then lobbed it back to Hoggard. (the last bit was not captured by the TV cameras).
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
Isolator said:
Now I Know What Happened In the Last Over of the Third Test...

<boring bit snipped>

In conclusion, Angus Fraser is a load of crap.
You know nothing. The 'standing outside the crease' incident was the second ball.

I'll give you the Fraser bit though.
 

Isolator

State 12th Man
luckyeddie said:
You know nothing. The 'standing outside the crease' incident was the second ball.

I'll give you the Fraser bit though.
Well, I got something right, at least.

Pedro Delgado said:
Don't remember anyone chewing about it at the time, if you bat out of your crease you're there to be run out for me.
Agreed.
 

King_Ponting

International Regular
Pedro Delgado said:
Dunno what all the fuss is about, IIRC Aravinda stood out of his crease against (Cork?) the swinging ball a few years back, and Stewart was trying to run him out every time. Don't remember anyone chewing about it at the time, if you bat out of your crease you're there to be run out for me.
isnt it classed as stumped?
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
King_Ponting said:
isnt it classed as stumped?
Yup, made no attempt to run, therefore it is stumped.

If Bell had've hit the stumps at short-leg last Test, he would have had Martyn out stumped, I think.
 

Isolator

State 12th Man
Yeah, stumped. He's right, anyway.

One question I thought of:

If a batsman's batting with a runner, and he's bowled off a no-ball, but the runner is standing outside his crease, is it a run-out?
 

Pedro Delgado

International Debutant
aussie said:
oh dear would u believe it rain again :wacko: , at least tomoro forecast is good
Tomorrow a couple of light showers, but good. Sat/Sun clear all the way.

Frustrating though this for Eng, going well at the moment. :@
 

King_Ponting

International Regular
Isolator said:
Yeah, stumped. He's right, anyway.

One question I thought of:

If a batsman's batting with a runner, and he's bowled off a no-ball, but the runner is standing outside his crease, is it a run-out?
no, because its just the same as someone standing outside of their crease and getting bowled. unless another feilder comes in contact with the ball before it hits the stumps...
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Isolator said:
Yeah, stumped. He's right, anyway.

One question I thought of:

If a batsman's batting with a runner, and he's bowled off a no-ball, but the runner is standing outside his crease, is it a run-out?
no i dont think so because for him to be runout he the batsman who is on strike would have to be looking for a run so he'll just be out bowled....
 

King_Ponting

International Regular
aussie said:
no i dont think so because for him to be runout he the batsman who is on strike would have to be looking for a run so he'll just be out bowled....
he cant tho cause its a no-ball... and u cant have the runner getting out bowled as the runner does not take strike
 

Top