Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Ashes 2009

Nemo said:
Okay then, replace 'England' with 'India' and the point still stands.
Click to expand...

Your "point" seems to be that people don't win matches without making runs and taking 20 wickets. Rather obvious, and quite true. Of course, whether you are able to take 20 wickets depends 100% on the umpires, as they are the ones who decide if something is a wicket. And whether you are able to score runs depends on whether the umpire decides to give you out for no reason.

Thus, umpires can affect a match, by giving wickets that are not out, and vice-versa. They did this routinely in the mentioned Test. Always in favor of Australia. Your proposition is that this poor umpiring did not affect the result of the Test. Given how lopsided the poor decisions were, and India were 2 overs from a draw, your proposition is fucking stupid.

And you're a coward for trying to defend it instead of simply admitting it was a silly thing to say.
 
Aye, was expecting a bit more nerves and wobbles.
It is important that England get off to a decent start to get a sliver of morale back in the team.
 
Discordia said:
Your "point" seems to be that people don't win matches without making runs and taking 20 wickets. Rather obvious, and quite true. Of course, whether you are able to take 20 wickets depends 100% on the umpires, as they are the ones who decide if something is a wicket. And whether you are able to score runs depends on whether the umpire decides to give you out for no reason.

Thus, umpires can affect a match, by giving wickets that are not out, and vice-versa. They did this routinely in the mentioned Test. Always in favor of Australia. Your proposition is that this poor umpiring did not affect the result of the Test. Given how lopsided the poor decisions were, and India were 2 overs from a draw, your proposition is fucking stupid.

And you're a coward for trying to defend it instead of simply admitting it was a silly thing to say.
Click to expand...
We're never going to agree, so why not agree to disagree instead of hurling imprecations?

E2A: and you're misrepresenting me, what I said was that no one has ever won a test without the performance to merit it. I'm quite prepared to believe that there have been some matches which might otherwise have been draws, but results like that are almost always very marginal.
 
tangerinedream said:
So Bell has consistently performed well for England in pressure situations and been a regular match winner in crucial games has he?
Click to expand...
Huh? Where have I said that? All I've said was that the man deserves not to have unreasonable expectations placed upon him. If he scores a decent knock, that is an encouraging sign that should be nurtured. You don't help matters if a man scores 120 and all you say is, "huh, should have been 150."
 
paulhackett66 said:
It's not just a target for Bell though, although it is him discussed here? Throughout test cricket for any batsman, there is a call to make big scores (leveled at Cook for not making more than 130? in his first 8 centuries?, KP for not making more than 158 for a while..) and in test cricket that means 150 plus.. that's one fairly standard measure of a test batsman?

I would question Cook, Bopara, Bell, Collingwood for any number of reasons, in Bell's case though it has always been that he has not made a big score against the Aussies and failure not to 'go on'.. I'm pleased he's doing well here, but the answer to your question about Bell, is that a score that would brook no arguments from people would be 150 plus.. even if he makes a ton, people will say 'why didn't he capitalise on a pitch when it's at his best, when he was well set etc.'
Click to expand...
It's true. But the practical reason why it is difficult to score 150 is that you generally have to do so after an overnight break. So you aren't "well set" when you start all over again in the morning -- it's like you've come in all over again.
 
kabbes said:
Huh? Where have I said that? All I've said was that the man deserves not to have unreasonable expectations placed upon him. If he scores a decent knock, that is an encouraging sign that should be nurtured. You don't help matters if a man scores 120 and all you say is, "huh, should have been 150."
Click to expand...
I don't think it's ever a case of 'should have been 150.' More 'might have been 150.' Although, of course, if someone gets out for a nice round 150, it's then a case of 'good chance for him to get a double.'
 
kabbes said:
It's true. But the practical reason why it is difficult to score 150 is that you generally have to do so after an overnight break. So you aren't "well set" when you start all over again in the morning -- it's like you've come in all over again.
Click to expand...

150 is a benchmark though (rightly or wrongly - Holding just mentioned it with Bell in mind just now) and yes, part of that test is the number of breaks in play that getting to that score incorporates, although in a day where they were scoring over 4 an over, it is almost a realistic target for a score in a day (20-25 runs per over).

Fingers crossed Bell and Trott stay in for the rest of the day..
 
This series has been nowhere near the quality of 2005 has it. Or am I not allowed to say that? Bit of a letdown.
 
kabbes said:
Huh? Where have I said that? All I've said was that the man deserves not to have unreasonable expectations placed upon him. If he scores a decent knock, that is an encouraging sign that should be nurtured. You don't help matters if a man scores 120 and all you say is, "huh, should have been 150."
Click to expand...

No I've explained in detail that Bell's ability is not in doubt and what he needs to prove, which he thus far hasn't in my opinion, is that he can win games and score big when it really matters.

Which is not an unreasonable expectation for someone playing at 3 who has about 50 games behind him and has been recalled and promoted.

If he was on his first or second cap, then yes, it would be a triumph to do what he has done, but as I have clearly said previously, he has proved already he can score a nice fifty but as he is playing in the position where generally the best batsman in the side (representing the whole country) plays, to prove his mettle with a genuinelly big score is the order of the day.

Look at the match in isolation and to score 80ish is a minor triumph, to look at in the context of his career then, no, sorry, it's just about 'enough.' Look at in the context of the great test no3s who I believe Bell can live with in terms of technique and a nice nearly score is not good enough. He wants to bat at 3 - go and prove it Belly. So far, yes he is, but with his record in the past, no you can't just accept a decent score.

I was the first to complain about unreasonable expectations when people moaned at KP for top scoring, but the difference is KP HAS won games and scored big hundreds at crucial times against Aussie. Bell, to date hasn't. Now, hopefully on monday, Bell will be holding a bottle of champagne and England will be celebrating the coming of age at last of a player who has to date flattered to achieve.

I would suggest that rather than us hating Bell and wanting him to fail so we can castigate him, you want him to succeed purely so you can say 'I told you so.' I hope (as I think does Nemo and Trippy and everyone else) you get that chance.

Now, I want to listen to Stephen Fry on TMS...
 
gabi said:
This series has been nowhere near the quality of 2005 has it. Or am I not allowed to say that? Bit of a letdown.
Click to expand...
It's had its moments, but no, nowhere near the 2005 standard, either in terms of the quality of the Cricket in general, or the closeness of the matches.
 
Best moments for me so far:

Rescueing the match at cardiff.
England getting 7 wickets in one session.
England winning the lords test and flintoff getting 5 wickets at his last ever test match there. If those aren't memorable moments i don't know what is.
 
baldrick said:
what about now? if this isn't a pressure sitch i don't know what is. 72 not out in a final against the aussies :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I've not said he's not doing well up to this point. I said below I'm happy to see him fighting and making ugly runs. I'm delighted he is not out, I'm delighted he's batted a session and 3/4s. I will be cock-a-fucking-hoop if he is there at the close.

Let us not forget. He is batting at number 3 for a test match team. If we got punter out at 72, we'd think... *phew, thank god we got him*

There in is the difference...

Now, let's see if bell can... fuck... bowled.

:mad::mad::mad:
 
tangerinedream said:
No I've explained in detail that Bell's ability is not in doubt and what he needs to prove, which he thus far hasn't in my opinion, is that he can win games and score big when it really matters.

Which is not an unreasonable expectation for someone playing at 3 who has about 50 games behind him and has been recalled and promoted.

If he was on his first or second cap, then yes, it would be a triumph to do what he has done, but as I have clearly said previously, he has proved already he can score a nice fifty but as he is playing in the position where generally the best batsman in the side (representing the whole country) plays, to prove his mettle with a genuinelly big score is the order of the day.

Look at the match in isolation and to score 80ish is a minor triumph, to look at in the context of his career then, no, sorry, it's just about 'enough.' Look at in the context of the great test no3s who I believe Bell can live with in terms of technique and a nice nearly score is not good enough. He wants to bat at 3 - go and prove it Belly. So far, yes he is, but with his record in the past, no you can't just accept a decent score.

I was the first to complain about unreasonable expectations when people moaned at KP for top scoring, but the difference is KP HAS won games and scored big hundreds at crucial times against Aussie. Bell, to date hasn't. Now, hopefully on monday, Bell will be holding a bottle of champagne and England will be celebrating the coming of age at last of a player who has to date flattered to achieve.

I would suggest that rather than us hating Bell and wanting him to fail so we can castigate him, you want him to succeed purely so you can say 'I told you so.' I hope (as I think does Nemo and Trippy and everyone else) you get that chance.

Now, I want to listen to Stephen Fry on TMS...
Click to expand...
That's fair enough as it goes. But any such analysis HAS to be in the context of the alternatives that are available!

Let me ask you a question: suppose Bell comes back after tea and gets himself out for 75. So you say that it proves that he doesn't have the temprament, typical Bell and so on. So does that mean that somebody else should have played instead? If so, whom? If there is somebody else then fair enough (and I'll be interested to know whom, because I'm no expert on county cricket). But if the conclusion is that Bell was still actually the best option then what really is the point? If he is the best option, better to get behind him then say "oh, he'll get between 30 and 65" before he even starts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WhyLikeThis
The Ashes 2023
68 69 70 71 72
Replies
2K
Views
48K
kabbes
K
RileyOBlimey
The Ashes 2021/22
45 46 47 48 49
Replies
1K
Views
28K
two sheds
two sheds
M
The Ashes 2019
57 58 59 60 61
Replies
2K
Views
60K
planetgeli
P
P
The Ashes 2017-18
24 25 26 27 28
Replies
822
Views
30K
Reiabuzz
R
S
The Ashes 2015
36 37 38 39 40
Replies
1K
Views
32K
Idaho
Idaho
Back
Top Bottom