udosuk wrote:"...Cec, now that the cricket is over, you can talk about other sports too, such as AFL.
Not much to say right now as I don't think our Swannies are doing very well. "Spida" Everitt is a bit over-rated I think...."
udosuk, my team Richmond (known as "the Tigers") are still to notch up a win having lost their first five games of the season - I understand this last happened by a Richmond team 25 years ago. With such a poor start to the season it's hard to maintain enthusiasm. Richmond's coach, Terry Wallace, is now into his third year and whilst he comes across well to the media about Richmond's future I'm not convinced he is a good coach. I'm sorry Richmond didn't get Rodney Eade as their coach who has greatly improved the Western Bulldogs.
On "Spida Everitt" he'll probably play some good games during the season but I agree with you that he's not the player which the media portrays him to be.
Just a comment on the "farsical" end to the Cricket final. I thought the media criticism against the umpires and others was unfair. As I "saw" the situation, the media and the ground staff incorrectly reacted to Ricky Ponting's over-enthusiasm who prematurely assumed Australia had won the match even though three overs were still required to be bowled for Sri Lanka to complete its reduced 36-over innings.
Presumably Sri Lanka's tail enders, Chaminda Vaas and Lasith Malinga, agreed to the umpires' bad light offer, which was taken with three overs remaining to be bowled and 63runs still needed for victory. Whilst it was highly unlikely that this target could have been achieved, umpires must ignore any scenarios and only ensure a team is given the opportunity to resume its innings should improved light permit this on the same day.
As it did not appear that the Sri Lankan team captain had conceded defeat then, in my opinion, the Australian team erred in prematurely celebrating their win in which case the umpires were correct in following the rules to ensure a correct finish to the game by requiring the deferred final three overs to be bowled on the day. The completion of twenty or more overs by the team batting last merely means a result can be decided under the Duckworth-Lewis system and only the umpires can decide when play is abandoned for the day but which is not automatically granted solely because of a light appeal.
I can well imagine a far worse situation if the umpires had not required a team to bat out the remaining three overs only to be later shellshocked by that team rightly protesting that it was denied the opportunity to bat out their entitled 36 overs.
My computer is not working properly and doesn't respond as quickly as it used to - hmm! this rings a bell - I'm having it looked at tomorrow by my son's PC guru mate and I suspect he'll suggest I upgrade my equipment.
I continue to browse through the Forum with interest and post occasionally but am more embroiled in a number of other matters which restricts my Forum time.
Cec