PDA

View Full Version : Ashes: Britain vs Australia



Lord Jubjub
2010-Nov-25, 01:53 AM
I know the basic outline of cricket. Anyone want to give me an explanation of this post on the BBC commentary?


Shane Watson into the attack, some talk that he's carrying a niggle as well. Sun out as Watson comes trotting in - leg-side half-bunger and that is hot buttered from Trott, clipping to the square-leg fence. Whacking great wide outside off-stump and Watson looks slightly startled - the expression of a man who has just got into a packed lift at work, looked in the mirror and suddenly realised he has a dried bogey streaked across his face. A suggestion that Trott nicked one off Hilfenhaus earlier but no-one appealed. Odd. TROTT'S GONE! PLAYED ALL AROUND A STRAIGHT ONE!

I would like to pride myself on knowing the language across the pond but this had me in hysterics.

pzkpfw
2010-Nov-25, 02:55 AM
...and five days of that.

Atraveller
2010-Nov-25, 03:40 AM
Apparently he was a "Duck"

Maybe we can get Spoons to coment. He claims he can speak that language...

Atraveller
2010-Nov-25, 04:03 AM
Of Course we won't hear from Spoons until the end of Play today...

Kadava
2010-Nov-25, 05:03 AM
I'm sorry, that all seems perfectly straight forward. What could you possibly be having difficulty with there?

Moose
2010-Nov-25, 10:32 AM
I'm still firmly convinced that cricket is a nationwide elaborate prank on us colonials (and ex-colonials). It's like Calvin-ball without the tigers. The "rules" are made up on the spot.

Heid the Ba'
2010-Nov-25, 12:32 PM
Not Britain, England. Nothing to with us.

captain swoop
2010-Nov-25, 10:33 PM
Not Britain, England. Nothing to with us.

That's what you say... http://www.cricketscotland.com/

RAF_Blackace
2010-Nov-26, 12:49 AM
Some Classic comments broadcast live on TV during matches by the famous commentator Brian Johnston, a national treasure.

Jonathan Agnew suggested that Ian Botham was out hit wicket because he had failed to "get his leg over". Johnston carried on commentating (and giggling) for 30 seconds before dissolving into helpless laughter.

Amongst his other classic moments were the comments.

"There's Neil Harvey standing at leg slip with his legs wide apart, waiting for a tickle".

And the classic during an England West Indies match with the West Indian Bowler Michael Holding and Peter Willey at the crease...Yes you guessed it.

"And The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey".

Off air, Brian was once interviewing an American who, when asked about his visit, made the statement; "London is the Language of the world". To which Johnston instantly replied "Oh, so you're just passing through, then."

Spoons
2010-Nov-26, 02:34 AM
I know the basic outline of cricket. Anyone want to give me an explanation of this post on the BBC commentary?
I'll give it a crack. (Have a go) I've only got another 20 minutes til the end of the lunch break and then the Aussies come out to bat some more.


Shane Watson into the attack, some talk that he's carrying a niggle as well.
Shane Watson, an all-rounder, which means he bats and bowls equally well, has started bowling an over (set of 6 balls). They call the bowlers the attack. Apparently there was some rumour of him being injured.

Sun out as Watson comes trotting in - ...
It's a sunny day. Of course that can change quickly in Queensland. In fact, it did. There was a 5 minute rain a little after all this happened, I think.

...leg-side half-bunger and that is hot buttered from Trott, clipping to the square-leg fence.
Leg side means that the balls was heading towards the backside of him. Imagine someone standing sideways, leaning over, their legs are more to one side, their head the other side. They call the leg side "leg-side" and the head side "off-side". This ball was leading more to the leg-side than the off-side. Half-bunger pretty much means half volley, I believe. So the ball didn't bounce until right near the batsman's feet. It's a derogatory term for a ball that's been bowled. He hit the ball to square leg fence, meaning he hit it square of his stance, basically 90 degrees against where the ball came from, towards the leg side of his body. (for a right handed batsman that means he hit it square to his left)

Whacking great wide outside off-stump and Watson looks slightly startled - the expression of a man who has just got into a packed lift at work, looked in the mirror and suddenly realised he has a dried bogey streaked across his face.
The ball was bowled quite wide from the line between the 2 sets of 3 wooden stumps which poke out the ground at either end of the pitch (the hard area you bowl and bat on). The ball should usually be aimed close to stump to stump, but this was wide of the stumps, so if the batsman didn't hit the ball it wouldn't hit the stump anyway (hitting the stumps is one way of getting the batsman out). The bogey stuff, that's just some wacky irreverent Brit humour, I suspect.


A suggestion that Trott nicked one off Hilfenhaus earlier but no-one appealed. Odd. TROTT'S GONE! PLAYED ALL AROUND A STRAIGHT ONE!
There was talk that Trott (an English batsman) clipped the ball with his bat, and the ball was then likely caught by an Australian fieldsman. That would be one way of getting someone out. Like in baseball, hit the ball, then it gets caught before landing and the batsman is out. But, the fielding team has to yell out, and appeal to the umpire, claiming they got them out. At that point the umpire can say yes, he's out, or no he's not. If the fielders don't appeal the umpire should not say anything about whether he's out or not. In all caps they're exclaiming that a ball was bowled well, straight from stump to stump, and Trott swung his bat around the ball without hitting it. Sounds like the ball went straight past him and hit the stumps.

I'm sure that clears it all up nicely - you're now all honorary cricket umpires & analysts now. Congratulations!

Atraveller
2010-Nov-26, 02:54 AM
Thanks Spoons - it all becomes clear...

You know I live about a block away from the Gabba. It took me over a hour to drive home last night because the Ashes had let out... So I guess I was driving through the ashes... (better than driving through the snow I guess...)

Spoons
2010-Nov-26, 03:12 AM
The Vics might disagree with you there, given the amount of bushfires they seem to cop.

Lord Jubjub
2010-Nov-26, 09:46 PM
Ya know, you've got to wonder about a game that has a lunch break--never mind that it can last a few days.

Kadava
2010-Nov-26, 10:01 PM
And a tea break too. And several drinks breaks.

RAF_Blackace
2010-Nov-26, 10:29 PM
Not to mention the fact they stop play if it gets too dark, too cold or too wet. In fact a single rain drop has been known to stop play for several hours.

Kadava
2010-Nov-27, 05:16 AM
Too cold isn't often a problem in Australia. On the other hand, they have stopped for too hot.

captain swoop
2010-Nov-27, 08:16 PM
There was talk that Trott (an English batsman) clipped the ball with his bat, and the ball was then likely caught by an Australian fieldsman. That would be one way of getting someone out. Like in baseball, hit the ball, then it gets caught before landing and the batsman is out. But, the fielding team has to yell out, and appeal to the umpire, claiming they got them out. At that point the umpire can say yes, he's out, or no he's not. If the fielders don't appeal the umpire should not say anything about whether he's out or not.

If a batsman swings at a ball and it just clips the bat before making contact with the batsmans pads or glove it can be hard to tell if the bat actualy did make contact. Fielders tend to appeal for everything that looks even vaguely 'out'

RAF_Blackace
2010-Nov-28, 01:19 AM
Day 4: After the first innings The Aussies have a handsome lead. England are playing well in the second innings. After the first drinks break we are 100 without loss. The best we can get is a draw, and if this continues, that is how the game will end. We cannot realistically win, but then we must not lose. Best tactic, force the draw and move on to the next game.

DonM435
2010-Nov-28, 07:13 AM
So the sportswriters in England don't speak English . . .

captain swoop
2010-Nov-28, 05:33 PM
Strauss put on 188 with Cook and Cook then added 121 with Jonathan Trott (54 not out).

England went to stumps on 309-1 and lead the Aussies by 88 runs,

Looks like it's going tothe Draw with only one day left.

Ponting must be crying lol, one wicked all day. They broke the bowlers hearts.

England should have put the Aussies in to bat when they won the toss.

matt.o
2010-Nov-28, 11:37 PM
England should have put the Aussies in to bat when they won the toss.

I don't think any England captain will ever do that again after Nasser Hussain was crucified for this scorecard (http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64009.html) after electing to field in 2002!

RAF_Blackace
2010-Nov-29, 01:54 AM
I'm 48. Never in my life have I seen England 432 for 1 in the second innings. One man heading for a double hundred and the first three batsmen possibly getting centuries. Every other ball seems to be going for 4.

Am I dreaming ?

I almost felt a touch of sympathy for the Australians. I said almost, it was just wind.

Kadava
2010-Nov-29, 02:26 AM
1/439, Cook 201, Trott 100. Very well done to the English side.

Of course this guarantees a draw.

matt.o
2010-Nov-29, 03:25 AM
1/439, Cook 201, Trott 100. Very well done to the English side.

Of course this guarantees a draw.

Yep, a draw is imminent. I predict the Adelaide test will end in the same result -- none of the bowlers (exept Siddle in the first inning, and perhaps Anderson with the new ball) have really shown any potential for penetration.

Spoons
2010-Nov-29, 10:15 AM
Yeah, I think England will be holding out for draws in all the matches bar Perth, which they should have a chance at winning. Of course, England being England, they'll be more than happy with drawing every game in order to retain the Ashes.

The problem is, Australia need to win matches, and we don't have the bowling firepower to get 20 wickets. We also have that woeful Clarke in the team, which isn't going to help our cause. The selfish little...

agingjb
2010-Nov-29, 05:47 PM
A test match with a hat trick and two stands over 300? I suspect the rest of the series will be a little more mundane (and I'd guess that there will be a win or two for one side or the other).

Trebuchet
2010-Nov-29, 10:32 PM
I'm afraid most of this thread is just as incomprehensible to me as the quote in the OP. Perhaps I need to find a copy of "Cricket for Dummies".

Ronald Brak
2010-Nov-30, 12:51 AM
Don't worry Trebuchet. I don't understand cricket and I've lived in Australia all my life except for the parts I lived out of it.

Spoons
2010-Nov-30, 01:34 AM
A test match with a hat trick and two stands over 300? I suspect the rest of the series will be a little more mundane (and I'd guess that there will be a win or two for one side or the other).

I don't expect much joy for either side anywhere but Perth or Sydney, since Adelaide is a dead pitch usually, and Melbourne is a dull drop-in pitch, so both of them require something special from the bowlers. Quite frankly, neither side has very impressive bowling stocks right now. I don't even think the batsmen are that brilliant either, they were gifted an easy pitch to bat on at the Gabba.

novaderrik
2010-Nov-30, 01:38 AM
this reminds me of the time i watched a rugby match on tv for almost an hour and still didn't have any idea what the hell i was watching other than a bunch of guys running around and beating the crap out of each other while chasing what looked like an American football that was made 3X too big.. they would almost score, then just throw the ball in the total opposite direction for no other reason than to prolong the beatings. .then they'd all gather into a large huddle and move around until the ball would squirt out, at which time they'd proceed to chase and beat each other once again..

must be a British Empire thing- which really explains why we decided that we didn't want anything to do with you crazy people in 1776..

TJMac
2010-Nov-30, 02:19 AM
this reminds me of the time i watched a rugby match on tv for almost an hour and still didn't have any idea what the hell i was watching other than a bunch of guys running around and beating the crap out of each other while chasing what looked like an American football that was made 3X too big.. they would almost score, then just throw the ball in the total opposite direction for no other reason than to prolong the beatings. .then they'd all gather into a large huddle and move around until the ball would squirt out, at which time they'd proceed to chase and beat each other once again..

must be a British Empire thing- which really explains why we decided that we didn't want anything to do with you crazy people in 1776..


:clap: :lol:

Spoons
2010-Nov-30, 02:38 AM
Yeah, much better to sit back with a beer hat and watch a bunch of wooly woofters with shoulder pads, wearing tights, skipping around, frollicking in the fields and occassionally presenting to the alpha queen while shouting random numbers. ;)

captain swoop
2010-Nov-30, 10:04 AM
Not fair. If off the ball tackles, forward passes, body blocking and tackling from the front were allowed in Rugby then helmets and pads would be needed.
Padded tackle vests and padded head protectors are already worn in Rugby.

Spoons
2010-Nov-30, 11:03 AM
Judgement without understanding isn't really fair either, but it's ok, since we're just having a bit of fun here.

novaderrik
2010-Nov-30, 05:52 PM
Yeah, much better to sit back with a beer hat and watch a bunch of wooly woofters with shoulder pads, wearing tights, skipping around, frollicking in the fields and occassionally presenting to the alpha queen while shouting random numbers. ;)

real sports involve machines with engines.. everything else is just a game.

Trebuchet
2010-Nov-30, 06:00 PM
real sports involve machines with engines.. everything else is just a game.

Sorry, you're wrong. REAL sports involve flying pumpkins. Only some of the machines have engines.

rommel543
2010-Nov-30, 06:10 PM
the expression of a man who has just got into a packed lift at work, looked in the mirror and suddenly realised he has a dried bogey streaked across his face.

got into a full elevator, looked into the mirror and realized he has snot (boogers) on his face.

DonM435
2010-Nov-30, 08:18 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43-Man_Squamish

Trebuchet
2010-Nov-30, 11:41 PM
Showing my age: I remember 43-man Squamish from when it was created. Ouch.

Kadava
2010-Dec-03, 12:17 AM
Not the world's best start for the Aussies in Adelaide...

Spoons
2010-Dec-03, 03:24 AM
No, certainly not. Still, it'll be worth it if North gets the time to find his touch. He and Hussey could combine to make some of the biggest partnerships in test cricket, I reckon. They can both bat for days if they're on song. Here's hoping.

captain swoop
2010-Dec-03, 09:09 AM
Depends on the Wicket. Looks like this is going to be a bowlers match.

Spoons
2010-Dec-03, 09:55 AM
It does right now, which is quite a surprise, but I suspect it's more to do with our batsmen being very sub-par. Another glorious failure for Ponting & Clarke. Ponting is starting to bat like Clarke now, not performing when needed.

I would like to see them both out of the team. I want to see the next lot of players get a go. Ponting has been fantastic, but he's getting old and it seems losing his touch - for example, his playing of the hook has been very weak of late, which is a sign his eyes & reflexes might be getting poor. Ferguson has been of test grade for a while now and can't get in because of the dead weight in the team.

Credit to England though, sounds like they bowled well.

I still think this wicket will die pretty quickly though - they had a bit of rain in the day or two before the match. Soon as that dries out it will be a dead pitch.