Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pietersen A Cheat?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    Pietersen A Cheat?

    I don't know about that. While you and I get a pleasure from the absence of artificial controls, most people might be more exercised by the absence of boundaries. It's very hard to score fast with no fielding resrictions.

    Ten runs for a six would no doubt be wheeled out- and smaller boundaries- but that wouldn't compensate. A couple of sixes then out caught in the deep.

    The 50 over game though could work with no restrictions, as it did until about the mid 80s. I even wonder if you could increase the number of overs available to a bowler, which would cut out its greatest weakness, that 10-20 overs are bowled by defensive non-bowlers every innings.

    Comment


      #27
      Pietersen A Cheat?

      Indeed, and by allowing teams to play an extra batsman, might increase the shot-making too.

      Comment


        #28
        Pietersen A Cheat?

        "One shot I have wondered about but never seen played, is turning round to hit the ball straight at or over the wicket keeper."

        It's called the 'bucket shot' - Bangladesh were the first team I saw playing it in serious cricket, though a Pakistani batsman got out trying to play it with the very last ball of the Twenty20 cup final.

        My son Sean tried it for a while but finally gave up after he was caught at the wicket or at fly slip for the nth time.

        Comment


          #29
          Pietersen A Cheat?

          I think he probably was a cheat just there.

          Comment


            #30
            Pietersen A Cheat?

            Well the whole team conferred before they appealed, so they are all culpable - including Bell who through the ball to Pietersen.

            Let me think, who was it who ran out Murali after he went to congratulate Sangakarra for scoring a century?

            Ah yes, Brendon McCullum.

            Comment


              #31
              Pietersen A Cheat?

              Well, yeah, I wasn't picking on Pietersen himself, it just fit neatly with the thread title.

              Comment


                #32
                Pietersen A Cheat?

                If anybody didn't see the NZ cricketers going apeshit on the balcony, try and see it sometime (YouTube presumably).

                Of course one disapproves, no call for that kind of language, they let themselves down ... oh, bollocks, it's brilliant, just brilliant.

                Comment


                  #33
                  Pietersen A Cheat?

                  What happened? And can anyone provide a link?

                  Comment


                    #34
                    Pietersen A Cheat?

                    There's a pretty balanced selection of views here, plus links to descriptions etc.

                    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/jun/27/englandvnewzealand2008.englandcricketteam1

                    Comment


                      #35
                      Pietersen A Cheat?

                      Pietersen to captain England now, I see. Interesting.

                      Comment


                        #36
                        Pietersen A Cheat?

                        In chateau YATR-Tubby we were rather confused by all the anger about Collingwood. Did we miss something? You drop the ball at your feet and run, then you take a big risk. Indeed it becomes a bigger risk if you charge into the bowler. Why all the fuss about "the batsman could have been injured"? Sidebottom could have been injured as well. Provided no deliberate obstruction, I'd happily have the taken the run out. Maybe it's because I'm a bowler and I hate people that take the piss out of me with that sort of single.

                        The run out of Murali by NZ in 2006 was worse because he wasn't attempting a run. That wasn't McCullum's fault because he didn't know that when he whipped the bails off. But hard to see why Collingwood should have withdrawn this appeal when Fleming (?) didn't then in a much more clear cut case.

                        Comment


                          #37
                          Pietersen A Cheat?

                          Agreed. The pundits, led by Agnew, went very holier-than-thou and droned on about it for what seemed like hours.

                          Remember the old mantra? Batsmen miss, bowlers appeal, umpires decide. In this case, they should have called a dead ball without reference to either team.

                          I am looking forward to KP getting three or four games as England captain. With the central contract, Colly will survive through the winter and beyond, but his poor form in the tests this summer, longstanding injury and now the suspension should really threaten his place.

                          Comment


                            #38
                            Pietersen A Cheat?

                            Sky, led by Hussain and Ian Smith, were similarly pious. "Look at Sidebottom, he's not feeling very good about it" apparently. Some rubbish about win at all costs these days. Yeah, I can imagine WG or Douglas Jardine withdrawing their appeal.

                            I suppose these arguments are inevitable given all the talk of "Spirit of Cricket" going around. Fine, don't swear at your opponents, scratch the ball with a bottletop or scuff up the pitch on a length. But like you, I don't think this spirit should extend to players doing an umpire's job. In fact, it all seems a bit feudal, as though the captains are really in charge of things.

                            Comment


                              #39
                              Pietersen A Cheat?

                              If Smith and Hussein think it's bad now they should wait until the Twenty/20 'Winner takes all' competitions start.

                              If New Zealand accidentally knock over Kevin Pietesen when there's $5 million on the line, what do you think is going to happen then?

                              Comment


                                #40
                                Pietersen A Cheat?

                                And another dismal performance condemns England to the series defeat they've deserved. The last 10 overs of NZ's innings were characterised not so much by buffet bowling as five-course-slap-up-eat-till-you-vomit bowling. And a marvellous variety of drops too.

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  Pietersen A Cheat?

                                  270 was still a realistic target though- before the start the pundits thought 240 would be par. Although even a team with wickets in hand and slogging shouldn't score 72 off the last six overs.

                                  What does the panel think of KP as skipper? I thought he did reasonably well, squeezing the batsmen until those last overs.

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    Pietersen A Cheat?

                                    It was a funny selection, with no bowling to replace Collingwood. I think you can overdo the "bowling options" in ODIs- see Dermot Reeve in 1992 WC Final team- but Colly would be good in most circumstances for at least 6 overs, often the full 10. We needed those overs from somewhere.

                                    England were lucky not to lose the ODI with no result as well. Dismal series.

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      Pietersen A Cheat?

                                      The commentators made a lot of Vettori having seven bowlers to choose from- basically three quicks, the skipper himself plus dibbly-dobbly medium pace (Oram, Styris, Elliott).

                                      But were England that much weaker? The spinner, Swanny, can bat even if he obviously can't match DV's international experience. And England had Bopara and Bell plus two other p/t spinners in KP and Shah. The latter only bowled one bad over, to be fair to both him and Pietersen.

                                      I suppose Moores felt that a specialist opener would offer more than a marginal tenth bowler (Dimi Mascarenhas?).

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X