Planetarion Forums

Forest · 18 Jun 2005, 18:59

lmfao at bangledesh beating australia by 5 wickets

Please prepare to bend over and hand us back the ashes.

Thank You

Lunar_Lamp · 18 Jun 2005, 19:08

/me points and laughs at the Aussies*

*in the expectation that they shall still somehow manage to hold onto the ashes

lokken · 18 Jun 2005, 19:13

we're going to win the ashes

it is time

fact

s|k · 18 Jun 2005, 19:18

What are the ashes? I don't know anything about this game.

Lunar_Lamp · 18 Jun 2005, 19:19

It's scary though - in my mind every day England seem to be becoming more and more the favourites - and I'm not used to England being favourites against good teams.

Lunar_Lamp · 18 Jun 2005, 19:20

s|k: the ashes are the remains of the stumps burnt when england lost to australia for the first time. It was considered such a shameful time that the stumps were burnt, and it is tradition that every 2 years or so England and Australia play again to win the ashes. (the series of games alternates between the 2 countries, so that every 4 years it is in england)

lokken · 18 Jun 2005, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

What are the ashes? I don't know anything about this game.

I'll keep it brief:

bragging rights.

Forest · 18 Jun 2005, 19:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

s|k: the ashes are the remains of the stumps burnt when england lost to australia for the first time. It was considered such a shameful time that the stumps were burnt,

i never actually knew that tbh

Deffeh · 18 Jun 2005, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

It's scary though - in my mind every day England seem to be becoming more and more the favourites - and I'm not used to England being favourites against good teams.

Put your money where your mouth is then. You can get a cracking price on england.

But you wont bet, because you know youll still lose. Pietersen's inexperience will show, Vaughan will flounder, Flintoff will hit 2 sixes in a row then get caught out third ball, Harmison will play a shit first test then lose his confidence entirely. England arent really good enough, theres still enough time before the start of the ashes for Australia to get it back together and you know it.

Lunar_Lamp · 18 Jun 2005, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

/me points and laughs at the Aussies*

*in the expectation that they shall still somehow manage to hold onto the ashes

Stew · 18 Jun 2005, 19:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Put your money where your mouth is then.

I just put a bet on them at 13/5.

MrL_JaKiri · 18 Jun 2005, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunar_Lamp

s|k: the ashes are the remains of the stumps burnt when england lost to australia for the first time. It was considered such a shameful time that the stumps were burnt

Almost. The stumps were said to have been burnt as part of a declaration of the death of english cricket.

I'm not sure offhand if the bails that the Ashes claim to be made from were actually the ones used 120 odd years ago in the test.

Lunar_Lamp · 18 Jun 2005, 20:42

I think the originals stay at Lords, and the ones actually played for are just fake.
That's what I meant by shameful - but I couldn't think of the words.

Deffeh · 18 Jun 2005, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew

I just put a bet on them at 13/5.

Sporting odds i take it? How much did you put down?

http://www.oddschecker.com/betting/m...31x/sid/372212

The best price at a traditional bookie seems to be 7/2. Fraid you should have shopped around a little better

PS : Trescothick at 7/2 to be England's top batsman is a steal. Only Strauss can challenge him in my eyes, and hes not got odds just now

Yahwe · 18 Jun 2005, 22:34

all the world over each nation's the same
they've simply no notion of playing the game
they argue with umpires
and cheer when they've won
and practice beforehand
which ruins the fun

arbondigo · 19 Jun 2005, 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

PS : Trescothick at 7/2 to be England's top batsman is a steal. Only Strauss can challenge him in my eyes, and hes not got odds just now

Vaughan last series against the Aussies was a stand out, Trescothick won't do bugger all against the Aussies as per normal so 7/2 is rather shite odds. Though at the end of the day a test series is completely different to one day stuff, as much as i don't want to say it i can only see the Aussies regaining the Ashes yet again.

djbass · 19 Jun 2005, 08:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Vaughan last series against the Aussies was a stand out, Trescothick won't do bugger all against the Aussies as per normal so 7/2 is rather shite odds. Though at the end of the day a test series is completely different to one day stuff, as much as i don't want to say it i can only see the Aussies regaining the Ashes yet again.

and how!

SeanG · 19 Jun 2005, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Trescothick at 7/2 to be England's top batsman is a steal. Only Strauss can challenge him in my eyes, and hes not got odds just now

I'm assuming you didnt watch the last ashes series when the Aussies had Trescothick in their pocket for the entire series.

midge5 · 19 Jun 2005, 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanG

I'm assuming you didnt watch the last ashes series when the Aussies had Trescothick in their pocket for the entire series.

Trescothick is a far better player in England than when he is batting abroad. He has also improved quite a lot since that last Ashes series. I don't think he will be our top run scorer but he will do quite well in my opinion.

Deffeh · 19 Jun 2005, 16:47

I put a £5 on Australia at 11/10 there. Im aware england are favourites, but Flintoff will get himself out soon enough. Run rate is slightly slower than England would like.

If Tres isnt going to be top run scorer, who is?

Apothos · 19 Jun 2005, 19:07

Did Australia just lose again?

Deffeh · 19 Jun 2005, 19:29

Aye. They were able to beat the english, but not the south africans. Pietersen won it from nowhere.

Forest · 19 Jun 2005, 21:06

Once again, they got pwned.

lokken · 19 Jun 2005, 21:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Aye. They were able to beat the english, but not the south africans. Pietersen won it from nowhere.

We'll make sure to cheer on the scots with all those englishmen in the side

SeanG · 20 Jun 2005, 12:18

I think that even though we won the match yesterday in an ironic sort of way it underlined how hard it is going to be to win the ashes and what a good side australia are. It took an awesome over, an innings from nowhere and 2 misfiring pace bowlers for us to even have a CHANCE to win the match. If either Kasprowizc or Gillespie bowls how we all know they can bowl (and/or Lee returns) it really is going to be a very tough series.

Deffeh · 20 Jun 2005, 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by lokken

We'll make sure to cheer on the scots with all those englishmen in the side

You do realise that Scotsmen have played for "England" in the past?

The Scottish Saltires are just a county team, "England", is actually "Britain" when it comes to International test cricket. Thing is most Scottish people dont care about Cricket, which is understandable considering how boring it is.

MrL_JaKiri · 20 Jun 2005, 13:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

which is understandable considering how boring it is.

It takes a lot more work to understand what's going on that, say, football.

Deffeh · 20 Jun 2005, 13:07

How on earth do you figure that?

arbondigo · 20 Jun 2005, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

How on earth do you figure that?

Because perhaps a lot of people don't understand cricket whereas they do football...

MrL_JaKiri · 20 Jun 2005, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

How on earth do you figure that?

Because cricket is a more complicated, slower and more tactical game?

Deffeh · 20 Jun 2005, 16:02

You cant possibly argue that. Slower, and duller yes. More tactical? You bring the field in, or you switch to a spin bowler. Lets just throw football formations and tactics out the window

Even my mum understands cricket to a certain degree. She hates it.

And what was your original point - "that it takes a lot more work to understand" ?

KoeN · 20 Jun 2005, 16:09

i'm member of a 'mixed hockeyclub', which means the cricketclub can use our grassfield and clubhouse in summertime when we don't use it anyway.

last year we had a fairly big international tournament there, which i didn't see because i don't understand the rules of the game. at all.

now the field is nearly in my backgarden... should i bother with getting to know the sport or stick to hockey/football/whatever?

arbondigo · 20 Jun 2005, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deffeh

You cant possibly argue that. Slower, and duller yes. More tactical? You bring the field in, or you switch to a spin bowler. Lets just throw football formations and tactics out the window

Even my mum understands cricket to a certain degree. She hates it.

And what was your original point - "that it takes a lot more work to understand" ?

So the batsmen have nothing to do with the tactics for the fielding captain? The batsmen don't adjust their tactics according to the bowler or the field that has been set? The condition of the pitch has no part either does it nor the weather i suppose? The wicketkeeper standing back or up doesn't affect the batsmen either nor the field? That's just to name a few.

Yes football is tactical but it's nowhere near as tactical or psychological as cricket is. Everyone can understand cricket to a certain degree, the aim for the batting side is to score runs and the bowling side to get the batting team out. I'm also guessing that you've never played cricket at a serious level either Deffeh otherwise you'd realise that it's more tactical than football is.

furball · 20 Jun 2005, 16:36

At the most simplistic level (club side), football and cricket have roughly similar levels of tactics and strategy. In football, comprehension of formations, 'mark this guy', 'go up for corners' is ubiquitous. Everyone knows what these things mean and how to do them. In cricket, strategy extends to batting first or second and basic field placements.

At the professional/international level, footballing strategy and tactics don't increase a huge amount. Ability is much greater, but the pace of the game means that it's very difficult to get players to actually follow the tactics. The game is much more instinctive.

In professional and international cricket, there is far far more time for strategy and tactics. Bowlers are more likely to have the ability to bowl a certain line and length regularly, and batsmen have a far wider range of shots. At the team level, professional/international cricketers have the experience needed for the vision involved in field placements, while they have the time to prepare how to 'get at' certain individuals in the opposing side.

KoeN - you'd find it well worth it to try watching cricket. Through playing hockey, you clearly have decent hand-eye co-ordination, so it's worth a go even playing. Go with a friend who knows the rules properly, and every time you don't know what's going on - ask. Most cricket fans that I know would be perfectly happy to explain the rules to anyone who is new. There's certainly the time

Try watching the Ashes, especially the one-day internationals going on right now. I assume there's some way to get hold of coverage. Personally I'm not a huge fan of county cricket over here (i.e. club level), but internationals have me glued.