Aussie Cricket
-
Speaking of the umpires, should we also mention that the last delivery should have been a no-ball as Aust had too many players outside the inner circle.
Lillee didn't walk in.@Bovidae said in Aussie Cricket:
Speaking of the umpires, should we also mention that the last delivery should have been a no-ball as Aust had too many players outside the inner circle.
Lillee didn't walk in.oh shit i didn't know that!
no wonder the aussies want this to all go away.
-
It clearly irks @barbarian that his team were a bunch of fluffybunnies and have largely continued the trend since. If you shag one goat, you are a goat shagger for life.
Seriously though, I'm of the same opinion as mariner. It's sporting folklore. Like "hand of god" doesn't ever get mentioned...
-
The Sneddon catch was also so bloody obvious, but two Aussie umpires...
@mariner4life said in Aussie Cricket:
no wonder the aussies want this to all go away.
This.
-
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Genuine question. How old were you when it happened?
And it's always good to remind Aussies of their shameful acts.
-
I've always been a bit perplexed by underarm. It still resonates so strongly, and yet what Australia did was entirely legal at the time. It seems to be the 80s equivalent to Sandpapergate, and yet they are completely different situations with only one actually outside the rules of the game.
I don't agree with the decision to bowl underarm, but still to be talking about it 40 years later?
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
I've always been a bit perplexed by underarm. It still resonates so strongly, and yet what Australia did was entirely legal at the time. It seems to be the 80s equivalent to Sandpapergate, and yet they are completely different situations with only one actually outside the rules of the game.
I don't agree with the decision to bowl underarm, but still to be talking about it 40 years later?
You guys are still a bit miffed about Bodyline aren't you. Perfectly legal ...
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
I've always been a bit perplexed by underarm. It still resonates so strongly, and yet what Australia did was entirely legal at the time. It seems to be the 80s equivalent to Sandpapergate, and yet they are completely different situations with only one actually outside the rules of the game.
I don't agree with the decision to bowl underarm, but still to be talking about it 40 years later?
You guys are still a bit miffed about Bodyline aren't you. Perfectly legal ...
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
I've always been a bit perplexed by underarm. It still resonates so strongly, and yet what Australia did was entirely legal at the time. It seems to be the 80s equivalent to Sandpapergate, and yet they are completely different situations with only one actually outside the rules of the game.
I don't agree with the decision to bowl underarm, but still to be talking about it 40 years later?
You guys are still a bit miffed about Bodyline aren't you. Perfectly legal ...
You at your finest, mate!
-
Is this from the nation that still refers to Bodyline and that villainous Harold Larwood?
@Donsteppa said in Aussie Cricket:
Is this from the nation that still refers to Bodyline and that villainous Harold Larwood?
#booboo
-
It clearly irks @barbarian that his team were a bunch of fluffybunnies and have largely continued the trend since. If you shag one goat, you are a goat shagger for life.
Seriously though, I'm of the same opinion as mariner. It's sporting folklore. Like "hand of god" doesn't ever get mentioned...
@Snowy said in Aussie Cricket:
It clearly irks @barbarian that his team were a bunch of fluffybunnies and have largely continued the trend since. If you shag one goat, you are a goat shagger for life.
The goat was shagged well before underarm though. The way Charles Bannerman carried on after being dismissed in 1877 set the wheels well in motion, IMO.
-
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Genuine question. How old were you when it happened?
And it's always good to remind Aussies of their shameful acts.
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Genuine question. How old were you when it happened?
-7. Which may well explain my slight confusion with the endless debate.
-
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Genuine question. How old were you when it happened?
-7. Which may well explain my slight confusion with the endless debate.
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Genuine question. How old were you when it happened?
-7
Kind of my point. (I actually meant to direct the question to @MN5 ...)
But I suppose it applies to everybody and how impressionable you were when it happened will impact on your feelings about it.
For
1112yo sporting nuffy booboo it was just the most major outrage. Young me just couldn't comprehend how you stopped playing properly.Absolute shocked disbelief.
Cushion I was leaning on watching in the lounge barely survived the kicking I gave it.
Edit: I can't maths
-
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
I've always been a bit perplexed by underarm. It still resonates so strongly, and yet what Australia did was entirely legal at the time. It seems to be the 80s equivalent to Sandpapergate, and yet they are completely different situations with only one actually outside the rules of the game.
I don't agree with the decision to bowl underarm, but still to be talking about it 40 years later?
You guys are still a bit miffed about Bodyline aren't you. Perfectly legal ...
@booboo I agree re bodyline. As an Australian I legitimately don't understand the outcry.
We do exactly the same thing now with regularity - use short, leg-side bowling to force a catch behind the wicket. So how we ever complained about when the poms did it is beyond me.
Like underarm - they exploited the laws of the game to their advantage.
-
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Wait a minute! This is a TSF cricket thread. Therefore any talk of actual present day cricket is strictly limited to a cap of 10% of posts. The rest needs to be about subjects like what some bloke who played 40 years ago averaged on the third day of tests while batting number 5 against left hand bowlers. This then needs to be compared to other similar players from different decades to decide who makes the all time 2nd XI.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Aussie Cricket:
This is what happens when the Black Caps don't
playlose for 3 moreweeksgames.Fixed.
-
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Genuine question. How old were you when it happened?
And it's always good to remind Aussies of their shameful acts.
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
@MN5 said in Aussie Cricket:
The underarm incident was a boring, overblown non event 40 years ago.
How people still feel the need to wank on about it to this day is completely beyond me.
Genuine question. How old were you when it happened?
And it's always good to remind Aussies of their shameful acts.
Look, it was a bit of a fluffybunny thing to do but the Chappells are no Brad Haddins
-
I've always been a bit perplexed by underarm. It still resonates so strongly, and yet what Australia did was entirely legal at the time. It seems to be the 80s equivalent to Sandpapergate, and yet they are completely different situations with only one actually outside the rules of the game.
I don't agree with the decision to bowl underarm, but still to be talking about it 40 years later?
@barbarian said in Aussie Cricket:
I've always been a bit perplexed by underarm. It still resonates so strongly, and yet what Australia did was entirely legal at the time. It seems to be the 80s equivalent to Sandpapergate, and yet they are completely different situations with only one actually outside the rules of the game.
I don't agree with the decision to bowl underarm, but still to be talking about it 40 years later?
Give us a break, will you? We're reminded of body line every Ashes series, FFS!
