***Official*** VB Series 2006

[jot1]

Kallis is on his way home. Now we can really write this series off. Just going to crawl back in my hole and pull the cover over..........

 

[JASON]

Chandana could still be taking part in the VB series by next week if Murali goes away for Little Murali's birth in Madras .

 

[JASON]

Come on Jason your boys did well. 281 is a good score. You are so negative towards your team.

Mate, that's because they have been playing pretty poorly for a long time and not showing any signs of rising from the Dumps till last night Smith threw them a little lifeline by letting them bat first and then decided to chase under lights.

Even then I really thought SA with their strong line up would do it easily , until they decided to gift SL a couple of wickets with their shocking run outs when 2 batters decided to remain at the same end for no explicable reason .

 

[vic_orthdox]

Good signs for SL last night. Bandara looks good - very tough to get underneath and launch. That's why Kemp had to go across the line, and why he ended up getting out to him.

 

[JASON]

I won't be surprised if Bandara loses some of his match fee for his sending off of Kemp. It looked the umpire was having a word to him as they went to celebrate the wicket.

That certainly wasn't called for , you are absolutely correct , Mate.

Bandara , IMO bowled a shade better than Murali yesterday and the SA batsmen seemed to struggle to get him away more than they did with Murali.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I was pretty impressed with Bandara when I saw the highlights this evening. It was the first time I'd seen him and he looks very tidy. Doesn't seem to be a massive turner of the ball, but bowled v few "4" balls either. Has quite a high action for a leggie I thought.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I was pretty impressed with Bandara when I saw the highlights this evening. It was the first time I'd seen him and he looks very tidy. Doesn't seem to be a massive turner of the ball, but bowled v few "4" balls either. Has quite a high action for a leggie I thought.

As Benaud pointed out, he does have a pretty lazy front arm. But his control was immaculate, and still had good rotations on the ball.

 

[Slats4ever]

As big a fan as I am of Saint Adam, I don't understand how you can equate his being fined for dissent/misconduct, with an umpire being fined for poor performances. The latter would be a form of performance-related pay, which is completely separate from issues of (mis)conduct. If St. Adam was on performance-related pay at the moment, he'd be busking on the streets of Perth and auctioning his bat, gloves and halo on e-bay.

if you read the context of my post you'd understand that it's a performance based pay which I'm asking for. Umpires should get a base pay (nowhere near as high as they get now) and then should get bonus's depending on the captains reports and match referee's report. Or maybe even have someone else employed to assess the umpires.

 

[Slats4ever]

He is an idiot.

he's a good man. Everyone involved with cricket makes mistakes these days... The only ones who seem to get in trouble these days are Australian wicketkeepers.

 

[luckyeddie]

he's a good man. Everyone involved with cricket makes mistakes these days... The only ones who seem to get in trouble these days are Australian wicketkeepers.

McGrath and Lee are wicketkeepers?

Because I seem to recall that Gilchrist just makes it three in a fortnight or so - and McGrath himself has admitted that they ought to tone down the gobby stuff.

 

[Slats4ever]

the comment was simple enough eddie... It was intended for the last few days.

 

[luckyeddie]

the comment was simple enough eddie... It was intended for the last few days.

You said "The only ones who seem to get into trouble these days are Australian wicketkeepers".

Now call me thick if you want, but these days implies to me a more protracted period of time than just the last few days.

Perhaps I need a nap.

 

[garage flower]

if you read the context of my post you'd understand that it's a performance based pay which I'm asking for. Umpires should get a base pay (nowhere near as high as they get now) and then should get bonus's depending on the captains reports and match referee's report. Or maybe even have someone else employed to assess the umpires.

I did read your post and the context seemed to be clear. You said: "It seems like a regular occurance these days for players to get their match fee's (doesn't Neil Pickup still deal with this kind of thing?!) cut due to indiscretions at the umpire. Which I suppose might be fair enough in some cases. These fines I believe are to improve the players attitudes towards the umpires. Shouldn't umpires also get their match fees cut if they have poor games."

You appeared quite clearly to be suggesting that if players have their fees cut for dissent then umpires should have their's cut for poor performance (which you now suggest, even more dangerously, should be partly based on captains' reports). I hadn't spotted any logic in this argument, but if you're essentially just arguing for performance based pay for umps I think that would be very difficult to assess.

Not suggesting you're wrong, but I'd also be interested to know of your source for umpires' pay rates. I was under the impression they were paid fairly badly.

 

[Slats4ever]

nope. I never suggested that umpires get their fees cut due to poor attitudes just if they have poor games. Which I believe is fair enough. They should be paid based on their performance. Like a lot of people in the world are. If you have an issue with captains helping determine the pay rate, then my second suggestion should help you form your logic. Someone should be employed each game to assess the umpires.

I remember on the cricketshow seeing Billy Bowden talk about how much money he got and it was a lot.

 

[Slats4ever]

You said "The only ones who seem to get into trouble these days are Australian wicketkeepers".

Now call me thick if you want, but these days implies to me a more protracted period of time than just the last few days.

Perhaps I need a nap.

an australian cricket fan would have to be deaf and blind not to know about McGrath and Lee getting fined..... once again it's purely subjective however what the term these days mean. You can think what you think... I'll think what I think.

 

[luckyeddie]

an australian cricket fan would have to be deaf and blind not to know about McGrath and Lee getting fined..... once again it's purely subjective however what the term these days mean. You can think what you think... I'll think what I think.

I'll take that as an 'up yours' then.

 

[Slats4ever]

no. i just made a simple statement and was a bit shocked to find it had been picked apart on choice of words...

 

[garage flower]

nope. I never suggested that umpires get their fees cut due to poor attitudes just if they have poor games. Which I believe is fair enough. They should be paid based on their performance. Like a lot of people in the world are. If you have an issue with captains helping determine the pay rate, then my second suggestion should help you form your logic. Someone should be employed each game to assess the umpires.

I remember on the cricketshow seeing Billy Bowden talk about how much money he got and it was a lot.

I'm completely baffled now, but it's late here and I'm giddy from just having won £45 in an on-line poker game. Why would you be moved to tell me that you "never suggested that umpires get their fees cut due to poor attitudes" when there's clearly no suggestion on my part that you ever did or indeed ever would suggest such a foolish thing.

Hopefully, that brings this delightful debate to a thoroughly unsatisfactory end (otherwise you'll have to wait for me to fetch mi' thinkin' cap, which is what we do in Yorkshire when confronted with such incomprehension).

 

[Slats4ever]

go to bed english people. it's getting too late and you aren't making any sense

 

[luckyeddie]

no. i just made a simple statement and was a bit shocked to find it had been picked apart on choice of words...

You obviously shock easily then - it was never my intention, and if it came over that way I apologise.

I was (in my own way) questioning whether you genuinely thought that Adam Gilchrist was the only person who had been called before the beak, because I tend to use the term "these days" as I would "nowadays" as descriptive of a protracted period of time.

Edit:

It appears that I'm not the only English person who thinks that your command of English is about as good as Glenn McGrath's when you remove all the 'F's from his scrabble set.