SA Footy

I've spent the whole week wrapped up in cricket functions and goint to the Test. You would not believe how precious the Poms have been all week.

Tuesday:
Arrive at airport. Refuse to sign any autographs or have any pictures taken with anyone.
Wednesday:
The Test Match dinner. Most touring teams send a decent contingent along. This year the Poms are not doing any functions or appearances apparently. (ie Flintoff and Panesar have both been no-shows at scheduled Adelaide appearances). They have apparently brought Vaughan with them for the express purpose of being the English face. They were not going to show for the Test Match dinner until Creagh O'Connor - SACA Board member and Chairman of CA, twisted a few arms. So, they sent along Hoggard plus their physiotherapist, media manager, kit attendant and a few second stringers. Their Clayton's appearance was also made on condition they didn't have to do anything other than make Hoggard available for interview with Mike Coward on stage.
Thursday:
Talk starts that the Poms must win the toss and bat to bring the series alive.
Friday:
Poms name unchanged team. Why? One reason. To send a message to their own team of faith in those who lost in Brisbane, regardless of the situation in Adelaide with the pitch, weather or whatever. Hence, Panesar not picked.
Then,
The team comes out with a clear objective - occupy the crease. Never mind scoring (32 runs in the first hour, 27 in the second), just bat as if you are in the nets and the runs will come one way or another. Most boring first day of cricket I've ever seen - Live or on TV.
Whole week:
Everywhere they go, the Poms are followed by three burly security guards to shoo away the kids, plus a contingent of Wanko (Weslo) security guards.

These guys think they are rock stars. Even Bono was more accessible to his fans. Prince Frederik and Mary have been more accessible to the public. Heavens above, can you imagine what the British tabloids would say if the Aussies were so unapproachable and stand-offish on tour?

I'm not even a person who wants to approach them - they just convey this sense of "lookout, we hold the Ashes".

Anyone else noticed this pathetic rock star-esque air they carry with them?

Obviously they are under enormous pressure to retain the Ashes on Australian soil but they are being so precious about the whole thing that they must be at the point of distraction anyway! When I look back on it I think the pressure being felt in-house within the team, and reinforced by these ridiculous rock star security measures, must surely have been a contributing factor to Trescothick suffering a recurrence of his illness and having to return home.

They need to be more relaxed and more positive. They are capable performers. Let them be - dont wrap them up in cotton wool and play the aussies with mind games and fill their own minds with boosters to their egos.

SQUAWK

When the players ask for your autograph, bite your pride and sign.

If the players do think they are superstars, it's not hard to understand why. England's reactions to winning the Ashes in 2005 was the greatest over-reaction to sporting success I have ever seen.

Squawk wrote:The team comes out with a clear objective - occupy the crease. Never mind scoring (32 runs in the first hour, 27 in the second), just bat as if you are in the nets and the runs will come one way or another. Most boring first day of cricket I've ever seen - Live or on TV.
Whole week:
Everywhere they go, the Poms are followed by three burly security guards to shoo away the kids, plus a contingent of Wanko (Weslo) security guards.

It's called Test cricket. They lost two early wickets. The pitch, whilst giving nothing to the bowlers, wasn't exactly allowing fluent stroke play either. I thought the minimal slips and ring field tactics of Ponting pretty much from ball one was as negative and boring as any batting the Poms dished out. In the circumstances I thought the partnership of Collingwood and Bell and then Collingwood and Pieterson was the first sign that the series was actually alive. The day's play was a true test.

As for signing autographs. I was out the back when the Poms arrived on Saturday morning and the few kids that were there had no trouble getting the autographs they wanted and the autographs were delivered with a smile.

My biggest problem with this Test match is the poor excuse for a cricket pitch dished out by Les Burdett. Last year it was the grass on the oval looking like it was about to die, this year the pitch is hopeless. With all the praise he normally gets, he should cop a bit for his recent work.

It doesn't help when with the weather we have had in the last few weeks. Hot for a couple of days then Thunder a little bit of rain, then a couple days of cool weather.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:If the players do think they are superstars, it's not hard to understand why. England's reactions to winning the Ashes in 2005 was the greatest over-reaction to sporting success I have ever seen.

What about Geelong winning the NAB cup?? It was truly embarrassing for this Cat fan. At least the Ashes are the ultimate sporting triumph for any English team, particlarly after the beltings the Aussies had handed out over nearly two decades.

regards,

REB

I'd imagine there would be two major reasons for their behaviour Squawk:

1. It is part of a plan devised over a year or so, that they believe will be of benefit to them (whether it will or won't isn't the point - they believe it will) and naturally must stick to it.

2. Any overreactions may well be as a result of conditioning to the media hype/intrusion etc that they are accustomed to back home, which I'm lead to believe is far worse than on our shores.

mal wrote:SQUAWK

When the players ask for your autograph, bite your pride and sign.

It has happened MAL but these days a bit of holiday facial growth allows me to get to the cricket without being hassled too much. Thank God! You know where you stand depending if you get your own Weslo gold shirt or not!

I think now we shall say Shattered !!!

Aerie wrote:My biggest problem with this Test match is the poor excuse for a cricket pitch dished out by Les Burdett. Last year it was the grass on the oval looking like it was about to die, this year the pitch is hopeless. With all the praise he normally gets, he should cop a bit for his recent work.

you know NOTHING!!!!

Dutchy wrote:

Aerie wrote:My biggest problem with this Test match is the poor excuse for a cricket pitch dished out by Les Burdett. Last year it was the grass on the oval looking like it was about to die, this year the pitch is hopeless. With all the praise he normally gets, he should cop a bit for his recent work.

you know NOTHING!!!!

Quite remarkable AERIE for 4 days people like me and you + tv commemtators
and the press sportswriters all commented about an unfair pitch, but only Adelaide Hawk
defended Burdett.
After day 5 half the bloody safooty site wants to tell us how wrong we are now.

ps Australia
10 tests in 2006
10 wins in 2006

Guys, someone screwed up the QUOTE function, making it looking Squark said the comment about the pitch et al - which he didn't.
I've edited your posts making them correct.

Dutchy wrote:

Aerie wrote:My biggest problem with this Test match is the poor excuse for a cricket pitch dished out by Les Burdett. Last year it was the grass on the oval looking like it was about to die, this year the pitch is hopeless. With all the praise he normally gets, he should cop a bit for his recent work.

you know NOTHING!!!!

haha I know! Anything I thought I knew about cricket was blown out of the water after today!

Still think it was a crap pitch though...

WHy - do want a game over and done with in 3 days???

these are the best bowlers in the world, why should they need the pitch to give them something???

Dutchy wrote:WHy - do want a game over and done with in 3 days???

these are the best bowlers in the world, why should they need the pitch to give them something???

The pitch was dead. Made it hard to get out, but at the same time, not easy to score which equals less runs and less wickets which makes for boring cricket. The occasion deserved a better pitch. Might as well have bowled with tennis balls.

Aerie wrote:

Dutchy wrote:WHy - do want a game over and done with in 3 days???

these are the best bowlers in the world, why should they need the pitch to give them something???

The pitch was dead. Made it hard to get out, but at the same time, not easy to score which equals less runs and less wickets which makes for boring cricket. The occasion deserved a better pitch. Might as well have bowled with tennis balls.

I dont understand your arguement, 1300 runs, 30 wickets and a result....WTF????

Tell me why the worlds best Bowlers need assistance from the pitch?

Les Burdett got an ovation from the members as he walkedd of last night, one very satisfied man

Dutchy wrote:

Aerie wrote:

Dutchy wrote:WHy - do want a game over and done with in 3 days???

these are the best bowlers in the world, why should they need the pitch to give them something???

The pitch was dead. Made it hard to get out, but at the same time, not easy to score which equals less runs and less wickets which makes for boring cricket. The occasion deserved a better pitch. Might as well have bowled with tennis balls.

I dont understand your arguement, 1300 runs, 30 wickets and a result....WTF????

Tell me why the worlds best Bowlers need assistance from the pitch?

Les Burdett got an ovation from the members as he walkedd of last night, one very satisfied man

That's an average of 260 runs and 6 wickets per day which proves how difficult it was for batsman to score quickly and bowlers to get wickets.

The world's best bowlers need carry from the pitch so there are opportunities to get wickets caught behind the wicket in slips and by the keeper. Batsman need a quicker pitch to be able to confidently play strokes and in turn create chances of more wickets.

Luckily for Burdett England had a complete brain fade on the 5th morning because a tame draw after 4 days of slow cricket should have been the result given the pitch.

Aerie wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Aerie wrote:

Dutchy wrote:WHy - do want a game over and done with in 3 days???

these are the best bowlers in the world, why should they need the pitch to give them something???

The pitch was dead. Made it hard to get out, but at the same time, not easy to score which equals less runs and less wickets which makes for boring cricket. The occasion deserved a better pitch. Might as well have bowled with tennis balls.

I dont understand your arguement, 1300 runs, 30 wickets and a result....WTF????

Tell me why the worlds best Bowlers need assistance from the pitch?

Les Burdett got an ovation from the members as he walkedd of last night, one very satisfied man

That's an average of 260 runs and 6 wickets per day which proves how difficult it was for batsman to score quickly and bowlers to get wickets.

The world's best bowlers need carry from the pitch so there are opportunities to get wickets caught behind the wicket in slips and by the keeper. Batsman need a quicker pitch to be able to confidently play strokes and in turn create chances of more wickets.

Luckily for Burdett England had a complete brain fade on the 5th morning because a tame draw after 4 days of slow cricket should have been the result given the pitch.

alright with your theory we should ban all cricket in the sub continent as their decks are slow and low and batting paradises...FFS!!!!