***Official Australia in South Africa***

[Son Of Coco]

False. India has lodged official complaint against Bucknor TWICE.



I saw OZ vs IND in both IND and OZ for the last 5 series and most recent series apart, it was a 90-10 split for close ones.
Same with PAK in OZ in 99 or so.
Same with NZ in OZ and that was quite blatant.

Its not every single series but its for MOST series so far.



Dude this take the word of fielders deal is relatively new stuff.
And why would ANYONE accept Punter's offer ?
Why on earth would i strike such a deal with a captain who's NEVER walked in his life before, who's VC implores others to walk outta fairplay and then appeals for everything under the sun, who's fwd short leg guy goes and whacks the stumps with his bare hands and then claims an out, etc. etc. ?



No thats where i disagree.
Its significantly more for the OZ than any other team out there and its been so for decades now.
I see more on-field controversy with OZ players than any other team over the last 20-30 years by a light year and half.



I am sure they do too. Most people who are 'wrong' dont think they are 'wrong' either.
Applies to all - petty criminals, racists, bigots, etc etc. doesnt change the fact that OZ players have been in significantly more on-field controversies than any other team over the decades.

I think that's what it all comes down to really.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The rest of the cricket world cares! This is blatant favouritism. I'm starting to wonder how many of the Aussie's wins all these years were due to bad umpiring favouring the Aussies.

No, you're definitely correct, we're an average team benefitting from blatant favouritism. After all, the light hasn't been called in any of the tests up until now have they? I haven't seen the last instance of it being called, if it was broad daylight then maybe you have a point. I doubt the umpires would call it if it was, I could be wrong however.

 

[Jono]

Am I the only one who thinks Symonds should play in the third Test?

No.

So I suppose he should also be given the Bangladesh tour, where he can get some easy runs and 'prove himself' as a test performer.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'm backing Symonds to average less than 15 with the bat against Bangladesh.

...and be retained for the Ashes.

 

[howardj]

Can't believe you took the bait Faaip.

This argument isn't going to go anywhere. I dare say decisions that go against Australia's opponents are made to look more crucial then ones that go against Australia because often its that decision that costs the team the chance to beat Australia, whereas Australia with their dominance have gotten many chances to win the match, and the decision going against them effects them less.

.

Spot on.

Also, Australia getting the lion's share of the close calls is nothing new. As Allan Border said, commentating on the West Indies in the 1980's, the dominant team tends to get more of the close one's in their favour.

 

[howardj]

I'm backing Symonds to average less than 15 with the bat against Bangladesh.

...and be retained for the Ashes.

It's like he's being retained because, with the hair and stuff, he's a cult-figure or something.

He's certainly not a Test number six.

To be fair though, he's an outstanding ODI player. One of the best ODI 'packages' in the world. And that's where the selectors should leave it.

 

[oz_fan]

The fact that Australia has a class leg spinner in Warne who always seems to be doing something (hitting the batsman's pads, bat - pads, missed edges, etc) means that Australia are going to have close appeal after close appeal. Eventually the umpire is going to start to think gee that last one was close maybe the next close one I should give out. The dominance and pressure of the Aussies is a key factor.

 

[howardj]

The fact that Australia has a class leg spinner in Warne who always seems to be doing something (hitting the batsman's pads, bat - pads, missed edges, etc) means that Australia are going to have appeal after appeal. Eventually the umpire is going to start to think gee that last one was close maybe the next close one I should give out. The dominance and pressure of the Aussies is a key factor.

Spot on, mate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Can't believe you took the bait Faaip.

This argument isn't going to go anywhere. I dare say decisions that go against Australia's opponents are made to look more crucial then ones that go against Australia because often its that decision that costs the team the chance to beat Australia, whereas Australia with their dominance have gotten many chances to win the match, and the decision going against them effects them less.

Hence why the Ashes decisions against them were so vital, because for once they were not dominant and suddenly they mattered a heck of a lot.

I'd agree with that.

I'd certainly say also that I've seen some series where Australia got the best of the umpiring, without question. However, the two key issues with umpiring decisions in my mind are that they are firstly luck of the draw, unless you believe the umpires are cheating, and secondly because they are largely random everyone gets the best and worst of them at some time or another. Blaming them for the long term success or failure of a team is ludicrous.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The fact that Australia has a class leg spinner in Warne who always seems to be doing something (hitting the batsman's pads, bat - pads, missed edges, etc) means that Australia are going to have close appeal after close appeal. Eventually the umpire is going to start to think gee that last one was close maybe the next close one I should give out. The dominance and pressure of the Aussies is a key factor.

Yep. It's not just about Warne though... sustained pressure can often lead to the umpire caving. It's something you see a lot... if a bowler is bowling extremely well, or a batsman is really struggling, and they get rapped on the pads half a dozen times and it's close every time, chances are one of them will be given, even if all of them are marginally off.

 

[C_C]

I'd agree with that.

I'd certainly say also that I've seen some series where Australia got the best of the umpiring, without question. However, the two key issues with umpiring decisions in my mind are that they are firstly luck of the draw, unless you believe the umpires are cheating, and secondly because they are largely random everyone gets the best and worst of them at some time or another. Blaming them for the long term success or failure of a team is ludicrous.

I wouldnt say that umpires are openly favoring OZ team. But rather, the OZ players know very well how to manipulate the umpires and which is why they are the most vocal about umpiring scenario remaining perfectly unchanged.

 

[PY]

SA going to have to be very careful here that Lee doesn't take Australia 20-30 past their total as each run may be precious!

 

[PY]

King of death?

The ball after.

 

[TazzX]

Now SA needs to make a 400+ score or else they will be 3-0 down at home ... what a joke.

 

[oz_fan]

During that innings Pollock's bowling average went past 23 for the first time in a long time. His really on the decline.

 

[Linda]

"Match over"

 

[PY]

Further proof that umpires favour Australia IMO.

They allowed them 62.5 overs to chase down 303 in a ODI.

 

[andyc]

Clark bowls de Villiers, SA effectively 1/42. Clark= freaking legend

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Nice leave, AB.

 

[andyc]

Gibbs just hit a six in the 10th over, what the hell?


Ohhhh it's being played at Jo'burg.