Heartland

Hussain - should he stay or should he go?

Stay. It's a bit of a turn-up when England have too many good batsmen!

Another reason why cricket isn't goth: you can't play when it's dark.

markfiend wrote:Stay. It's a bit of a turn-up when England have too many good batsmen!

Another reason why cricket isn't goth: you can't play when it's dark.

erm: day/night cricket is very popular here.

Karst wrote:Hussain - should he stay or should he go?

tough call. quite apart from hitting a ton to win the match he was also england's best fielder on sunday so there's no real worries over his age. on the other hand, it's going to be nigh on impossible to drop strauss after he hit almost 200 on debut which leaves the selectors with a (rather nice) dilemma.

i've a feeling nasser might call it a day though. he's obviously aware that he might be standing in the way of england building for the future and i can't think of a better way of calling time on your test career than a match-winning century at lords...

hallucienate wrote:

markfiend wrote:Stay. It's a bit of a turn-up when England have too many good batsmen!

Another reason why cricket isn't goth: you can't play when it's dark.

erm: day/night cricket is very popular here.

Wise-guy. But they use floodlights. So it's not dark. Ever heard of "bad light stopped play"?

RicheyJames wrote:i've a feeling nasser might call it a day though. he's obviously aware that he might be standing in the way of england building for the future and i can't think of a better way of calling time on your test career than a match-winning century at lords...

IMO he stepped down from the captaincy too early, so he'll probably do the same from the test side. The idea of going out on a high might appeal to him too.

markfiend wrote:

hallucienate wrote:

markfiend wrote:Stay. It's a bit of a turn-up when England have too many good batsmen!

Another reason why cricket isn't goth: you can't play when it's dark.

erm: day/night cricket is very popular here.

Wise-guy. But they use floodlights. So it's not dark. Ever heard of "bad light stopped play"?

I think they should replace floodlights with strobelights, it'd make the game far more interesting.

A smoke machine would also be cool...

Then you could call cricket goth

Just the thought of strobe-lit cricket is making my head hurt.

ouch. mine too.
i want to go to a 20 over match this summer if i can

they wear white. thats just trying so hard not to be goth its uder-goth.

either way, its a p*ss tedious game.

cricket 101:

1. There are two teams. One out, one in.
2. The team that's out try to get the player that's in, out.
3. When they do get him out, he goes in.
4. Then the next player goes out. As long as he's out, he's in.
5. The object is then for the team that's out to get the second player out. When they get him out, he goes in.
6. This process is repeated for each innings until the team that's out gets the team that's in all out.
7. When the whole team is out, the team that was in goes out, and the team that was out goes in.
8. Then they play a second innings until they're all out. Except one player. He remains not out.



stupid game

Quiff Boy wrote:cricket 101:

1. There are two teams. One out, one in.
2. The team that's out try to get the player that's in, out.
3. When they do get him out, he goes in.
4. Then the next player goes out. As long as he's out, he's in.
5. The object is then for the team that's out to get the second player out. When they get him out, he goes in.
6. This process is repeated for each innings until the team that's out gets the team that's in all out.
7. When the whole team is out, the team that was in goes out, and the team that was out goes in.
8. Then they play a second innings until they're all out. Except one player. He remains not out.



stupid game

So thats why i never got it at highschool.. well that and i had other things on my mind (a)

emilystrange wrote:i want to go to a 20 over match this summer if i can

oh emily, that's simply not cricket (see what i did there ). don't get me wrong, the twenty over slog-fest is good fun and it has its place but to bring it up during a serious discussion about test cricket is just plain wrong.

and quiffy; it's no stupider than twenty-two men chasing an inflated pig's bladder around a field but it is equally capable of producing moments of sublime skill that lift us above our everyday humdrum existence.

i'm not going to bother explain myself to you about why i want to go. i'm terribly sorry to interrupt your so-serious discussion about test cricket.
i'll be in the bar with quiffy, watching something else and hopefully being allowed to join the conversation.

well forgive me for daring to having a contrary opinion. i'm afraid that i momentarily forgot that heartland had mutated into a mutual back-slapping club and support group for die-hard fans of a long-deceased rock band.

see you in the next life.

How can you possibly have a contrary opinion to the bare fact that I want to go? I offered no reasons for my wish.

Quiff Boy wrote:either way, its a p*ss tedious game

Just be grateful you never had to suffer Stonewall Boycott in the 70s.

RicheyJames wrote:i'm afraid that i momentarily forgot that heartland had mutated into a mutual back-slapping club and support group for die-hard fans of a long-deceased rock band.

Aye. Bring back the grammar police. Never did me any harm.

emilystrange wrote:How can you possibly have a contrary opinion to the bare fact that I want to go? I offered no reasons for my wish.

it was never really my intention to debate this but what the heck...

you expressed a desire to watch a twenty20 match. now unless you're some sort of masochist (which can't be entirely ruled out) or just want to pay money to watch a bunch of blokes run around in their pyjamas (again, i'm keeping an open mind) you must see some merit in this particular form of the sport. whilst i readily accept that twenty20 does have some merits (ie it's a bit of a laugh, at times exciting and might help catch the interest of the next generation of potential cricketers (not to mention giving the counties a healthy financial boost)) i (along with many others) consider it to be akin to the b@stard child in the cricketing family. since we'd spent most of this thread revelling in our enjoyment of a thrilling test match (far and away the "purest" form of the game) i thought it only right to point this out.

so there you have it: i'm a cricket fascist and i'm not ashamed to admit it. you're more than welcome to enjoy the twenty-over slog-a-thon but i reserve the right to crticise, moan and complain when it's mentioned alongside the glories of a hard-fought five-day test between two evenly-matched sides.

oh, and do try to stop whining everytime i disagree with you. it's becoming most tiresome.

RicheyJames wrote:i'm a cricket fascist and i'm not ashamed to admit it.

Let's put that to the test. What is your opinion on the "new" no-ball rule concerning where a bowler's feet land?

Snobbery in cricket? Well I never.

RicheyJames wrote:oh, and do try to stop whining everytime i disagree with you. it's becoming most tiresome.

Pardon me, but as far as I’m aware I am the only one here allowed to be an obnoxious bastard.

Thank you.

markfiend wrote:What is your opinion on the "new" no-ball rule concerning where a bowler's feet land?

eh? as far as i can recall neither the 2000 nor the 2003 revision of the laws made any change to the no-ball rule relating to the placement of the bowler's feet. it's always been back foot in front of the return crease and front foot behind the popping crease hasn't it?

unless you're thinking about encroaching onto the pitch during the follow-through but that's not a no-ball - it's two warnings followed by immediate removal from the attack.

care to enlighten me further mr fiend?

Chairman Bux wrote:Pardon me, but as far as I’m aware I am the only one here allowed to be an obnoxious bastard.

Thank you.

oooh, get her! i didn't know i needed an obnoxious bastard licence

RicheyJames wrote:

Chairman Bux wrote:Pardon me, but as far as I’m aware I am the only one here allowed to be an obnoxious bastard.

Thank you.

oooh, get her! i didn't know i needed an obnoxious bastard licence

Well now you know.

Chairman Bux wrote:

RicheyJames wrote:

Chairman Bux wrote:Pardon me, but as far as I’m aware I am the only one here allowed to be an obnoxious bastard.

Thank you.

oooh, get her! i didn't know i needed an obnoxious bastard licence

Well now you know.

but i still don't care.