Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket
-
-
-
@nta said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
Back at the cricket: Proteas carving up as the game heads toward an inevitable pasting. Didn't enforce the follow-on despite only bowling 70 overs and holding a 267-run lead.
Really that was the time to drive the knife in.
With all of the scandal around the team, I think their minds are probably already thinking about going home
-
@siam said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
1000 cuts at the moment.
SA no declaration yet with 450+ lead.
Can't say I endorse this type of target or tactics, but whateverI look at it this way: I've got a chance to run up a metric fuckton of runs against Australia. I'm going to do that, and up to the third knuckle.
They'll come out after lunch in a flurry, and try to get Faf to a ton, then declare and have 4.5 sessions to knock over a deeply unsettled lineup.
Of course, as an Aussie fan, I hope it starts to fucking piss rain for three weeks straight.
-
-
@nta said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
@sidbarret had forgotten Morkel's side strain.
But fuck they're 546 in front - without one front-line bowler they could be leaving themselves short of overs with the bad light issues that have plagued this series.
There is still 140 odd overs left in the game.
We don't want to bowl that many overs between the three remaining bowlers.
-
The team now stands at an interesting crossroads. This article from today sums it up, in part.
The 'no sledging' approach is all well and good, but fundamentally it's prohibition and doomed to fail. As Elgar points out, at some point a tired fast bowler is just going to crack.
As has been discussed earlier on this thread, a bit of chat on the field is part of the game and to take a vow of silence is a bit ridiculous.
So do they define what they can and can't say? Obviously personal abuse is out of the question, but what about pointing out flaws in the batsman's technique? Or pointing out a certain bowler has dismissed him the past six times they have played?
While some may see that as 'sledging', I'd wager it's the type of chat every side employs - even those legendary nice guy Kiwis.
But the rubber will hit the road when they start losing. A home series loss to India is on the cards, and I'm not sure how well it will be taken if we go down 4-0 while our players heartily applaud Virat Kohli as he raises his bat yet again.
-
@barbarian that's the key point isn't it?
Australians abhor a loser. It's what makes you punch above your weight in so many different sports, your ingrained national psyche to always fucking win, and to ignore those who lose.
And cricket is the soul of the country. And this country has come to expect, with very good reason over the past 30 years, a successful cricket side.
We've heard the "spirit of cricket" thing before. And it lasts as long as the results do. As you say, if the loses start against India (of all fucking teams) then the drums are going to beat, and the leashes will be off. Snarling fast bowlers might be the most iconic Aussie sporting icon. Muzzled ones will only last as long as the wickets do.
And that's not a criticism by the way, it's an observation.
-
oh, and i saw a couple of articles this morning bemoaning the way South Africa set up the game. Warnie had a whinge of course.
You're 1-up in the series, and you are carrying two injured bowlers, no skipper in his right mind is going to dangle a carrot.
-
@mariner4life said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
We've heard the "spirit of cricket" thing before. And it lasts as long as the results do. As you say, if the loses start against India (of all fucking teams) then the drums are going to beat, and the leashes will be off. Snarling fast bowlers might be the most iconic Aussie sporting icon. Muzzled ones will only last as long as the wickets do.
True. I think defining 'the line' would be a good start.
But the problems run much deeper. In Australia, cricket just isn't a game where you have a beer and a laugh with the opposition after a game. Not at club level, not at district level, not at any level. It's the polar opposite to rugby in that regard.
The toughness, the sledging, the hard edge is bred in at a very young age. So expecting people to turn away from it when they get to the pinnacle of the game is completely misguided.
Any changes have to be broad and systemic, touching all parts of the game.
-
@barbarian said in Convicts v Marxist Land Thieves - Crucket:
The team now stands at an interesting crossroads. This article from today sums it up, in part.
The 'no sledging' approach is all well and good, but fundamentally it's prohibition and doomed to fail. As Elgar points out, at some point a tired fast bowler is just going to crack.
As has been discussed earlier on this thread, a bit of chat on the field is part of the game and to take a vow of silence is a bit ridiculous.
So do they define what they can and can't say? Obviously personal abuse is out of the question, but what about pointing out flaws in the batsman's technique? Or pointing out a certain bowler has dismissed him the past six times they have played?
While some may see that as 'sledging', I'd wager it's the type of chat every side employs - even those legendary nice guy Kiwis.
But the rubber will hit the road when they start losing. A home series loss to India is on the cards, and I'm not sure how well it will be taken if we go down 4-0 while our players heartily applaud Virat Kohli as he raises his bat yet again.
I actually think it will be pretty easy to find that line. Just imagine the stump-mic is on the whole time. (as it sometimes is). Don't start guerilla-advertising to point out that the broadcaster is supposed to turn it down so that you can run your mouth off. Instead sledge in a way that will be acceptable if picked up by the mic.
So don't threaten to break someones arm or comment on the attractiveness of female family members.
Do talk about, put doubt in the batsmen's head about technique, conversion rates, bravery, pitch conditions, fatigue etc
