Jump to content

How satisfying is to to be an Aussie in England at the Moment?


Jerry_Atrick
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have a 9:30am daily meeting with one of my problem projects, and yesterday, as I said good morning, one of the remarks was "An Aussie accent is the last we want to hear at the moment". Of course, Australia had gone 2-0 up in the Ashes at the time.

 

Many conversations start, I guess along the same lines as Brits engaging their German compatriots, in thinking "don't mention the war", but substitute war for "ashes".

 

It is crazy how in a semi-global sport, the ultimate prize can only ever be fought between two countries.. But, it does bring out the best.. and the worst.. of them. .

 

This series has a little bit of the bodyline series about it. But to me, in sport, despite being an AFL fan, there is nothing better than hearing the leather snick the willow on the way through to the keeper to dismiss another English batsman; followed of course, by the cries of "Howzat??" and then "Off ya go!".

 

Ironically, my offspring are stalwart Brits/English despite being dual citizens. Joss Butler went to their secondary school... I feel for the bloke in the last game - some great catches, but some really poor drops.. It seems when he has time to think about it, he over thinks it.

 

Apart from him, there isn't too much on offer in the English team at the moment..

 

While it is always satisfying to see England succumb.. I do wish it was more of a contest.

 

 

Edited by Jerry_Atrick
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not quite PC, but it's good to see the Christians beating the Lions for a change.

 

Test cricket is not like any other form of the game. If you want quicker result, then the 50-Over format satisfies that need. If you want big hitting and chancy shots, then 20-20 satisfies that. Test cricket is a game of nerve. While it can become boring when a batsman (Oops! "batter") stands his ground for 180-odd deliveries and only troubles the scorekeepers a couple of times, but, "Well done, that man!". If nothing else he showed that the Aussie bowlers were not such a dominating force, and that the Captain's strategies were not up to the challenge. 

 

The Boxing Day Test  will put the seal on the series. If Australia wins, then the rest is mere entertainment. If England wins, then the excitement will rise. Questions will be asked. Have the Englishmen taken a few cups of concrete and hardened up? Has Joe the Rooter become a leader, and not the bloke whose name was drawn out of a hat to take the Toss? Will a win in Melbourne be a flash in the pan? 

 

That's why it's called Test Cricket. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me cricket lost a lot of appeal after the ball tampering. I don't think Smith should ever be given the captiancy. I know a lot of people say he is truly contrite and has gone talking to schools about the stuff up he created, but it's just not cricket. As was the underarm bowling in an Aussie New Zealand game.

What does appeal is the few bits of womens big bash cricket. They seem to put more into it than the men.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If ball tampering caused you to lose interest, why didn't Mankading? While that dismissal is perfectly legal under the Laws of the Game of Cricket, most people consider it to "not quite be cricket". 

 

The first recorded dismissal of this type was in 1835. George Baigent (Sussex) by Thomas Barker, Sussex v Nottinghamshire, Nottingham. In match records, the dismissal is recorded as "Run Out". The dismissal got its common name in 1948/49 when Bill Brown  was run out by Vinoo Mankad, Australia v India, Sydney, 1947–48. It would seem from the report the newspaper that Brown got his just deserts.

Mankading.gif

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know the story of the original dismissal, but it has happened in the last 30 or so years, but i cannot remember the players involved. As before the bowler firstly warned the batsman and then later made an appeal, which was upheld.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never liked cricket and in the past have likened test cricket to watching paint dry. A while back, a dedicated cricket fan explained to me the ins and outs of test cricket, and it was an eye opener as he explained tactics and things. He made me see there's more to it than the uneducated non cricket types realise. These days, I can even listen to it on the ABC radio, as they have some good commentary. I've come to the conclusion that one of the biggest things that put me off cricket in the past was having to suffer the commentary of Richie Benaud. I couldn't stand him and would rather suck a boil than listen to him. Now he's gone, my attitude to cricket is not so hard. Who knows, I might even watch it on the telly one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The commentators on the ABC make a Test Match a social event. While describing the action, or lack of it, on the field they keep up a banter that varies from the comic to the technical. The commentators for the TV stations are trying to make entertainers of themselves. That's why they waffle on so much. 

 

Willedoo, why not start with small doses? Watch some of the 20/20 games. Generally tactics are similar, but carried out more along the lines of an ambush that a set battle piece. You'll pick up the lingo as well. After you have faced a few ball from that format, you could try a couple of short innings of 50-Overs. They use the same tactics as the 20/20 but in the form of sustained attacks. 

 

What you have to accept about Test Cricket is that for a win, one side must dismiss the other team completely twice. That means they must remove each opposition player twice. A player who is injured during his time at bat and leaves the field and cannot return is "Retired - Hurt" and that equates to being "Out".

 

If either team cannot take those twenty opposition wickets, then the game is a "draw". A "Tied Test" is a Test cricket match in which the side batting second is bowled out in the fourth innings, with scores level. Ties are extremely rare, with only two ties have occurring in the 2,000 Tests played since 1877. Both tied Tests involved the Australian cricket team: 1960 -v- West Indies and 1986 -v- India.

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boland! Boland! Boland!

 

1st Innings

13 Overs  2 Maiden  1 Wicket   48 runs  2 catches in the field

2nd Innings

4 Overs    1 Maiden  6 Wickets 7 runs (Including a hot little Caught& Bowled)

 

Game

17 Overs 3 Maiden 7 Wickets 55 runs  

Economy 3.23 runs/over; 7.85 runs/wicket; 14.6 runs/wicket

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is great to see a bowler's debut as much in the spotlight as a batsman's test debut century.

 

Just caught both the BBC and Cricket Australia's highlights - both were very short and not a lot of batting on offer.

 

At least England were spared the humiliation of a follow-on 😉

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...