I rather liked Sheps little quirks, I liked seeing him hop from one leg to the other when the team where on Nelson, or the slow finger dismissal, but then he was charming enough to get away with it. Are you umpiring the Brisbane Grade Final, I think that is coming up soon, Dalgleish, I think Queensland Uni got through to that and are defending champions, not sure about the dates.

Regards,

Tin

That was last season, and they won. This is the first game of the 2006-07 season, and the Premiers play South Queensland in an annual fixture. (If water restrictions aren't eased for cricket fields, it might be close to the LAST game of the season too!)

The sad thing around this part is that Hair actions are now being termed 'Racist' in many circles (with big radius).

Of course, we would have loved it if Hair was British - so we can add the colonial word also.

To me, Hair simply had too much alcohol (does he drink?) eating his cerebral matter.

Indian and Sri Lankan boards will support Pakistan (Surprising what cricket can do for foreign relations) consdiering hair has rubbed both the wrong way

I had one doubt

A wicket fell about 20-30 mins before the pulling up. Then the ball was with the umpires. No ball tampering or any objections were raised then.
I am really amazed at how fast a ball can be tampered (Boy, these Pakistanis are good)


Copago, I personally don't think it was a bluff call. The Sri Lankans have nearly done it a couple of times (both had Hair)

This might have been the first test forfeited while in play. A few years ago, India refused to play the final test against South Africa because of Dennis The Menace.

Dennis the Menace?

Although I see the game as "slightly" less boring than watching paint dry, I am intrigued by one question.

Why do they...

a. Not change the ball more often to eliminated "cheating".

b. If the game needs such things, why not produce a tamper proof ball with an agreed amount of "roughness" to allow the swing (or whatever) that the bowler is trying to get.

Am sure the game has a loyal following, and " any news" to make the game more popular on a global scale is probably welcome.

Interesting questions.

My opinion on them would be -

It wouldn't matter too much at the top level, but each ball cost about $400 (the top quality Test balls, that is). As you go down the grades, the balls are cheaper, but in the lowest grades, the balls are still about $20-25, so cost would be a factor.
Also, it was experimented with in the 40s, to take a new ball after, I think, 50 8-ball overs (the equivalent of about 65 6-ball overs). It basically eliminated the spinner from the game, because pace bowlers were able to get something out of the ball almost right up to the taking of the next new ball. And can you imagine a game without Shane Warne?

For the 2nd part, when the ball is new, or only a couple of overs old, that's when the ball usually swings most. It's only in the last 25 or so years that ways have been worked out that you can make a ball 'reverse swing' when it is over 50 overs old, and your bowlers are both fast enough and good enough.

Might as well just send bowlers out onto the field with a jar of vaseline in one pocket, and a scouring brush in the other!
We're now apparently letting bowlers throw the ball anyway, so why not give them carte blanche? I'll agree that batsmen are favoured in the laws, but I wonder how many sponsors will continue to support the game if most Tests are ending in 2 or 3 days because the bowlers are getting too much of an advantage? I'm sure that the TV networks won't be impressed, and that's where a good deal of the money in cricket comes from (and a good portion of that is Pakistani money, Bob Woolmer!)

I don't think the laws need changing just the way they are 'prosecuted'.
The fact that the 'character' of the ball changes during the 50 or 80 overs is a good thing. Spinners have never been completely negated regardless of pitch or ball, a good spinner can always take wickets or limit runs.
As for the length of the matches, perhaps if a 5 day test is completed early, they should have a limited overs match on the additional day or days. Using the same teams calling it an Ad-hoc Limited Over Match. This gives the public some value for money and should please the sponsors as the 'rights' for these matches could be negotiated separately.

Regards,

Tin

Actually, the spinners were nearly superfluous during the 1948 "Invincibles" tour. For whatever reason, it was decided that a new ball could be taken after, I believe, 60 6-ball overs, rather than the traditional 80.
This played right into the hands of the Australians, who had a pace attack of Lindwall, Miller, Johnston and Toshack, with the occasional contribution from off-spinner Ian Johnson. Needless to say, after England was on the receiving end of a 4-0 drubbing, common sense took hold once again.
Not a bad idea about the 'fill-in' match after a Test's early finish, but I just don't think people will watch something that's really nothing but a 'knock-up' game. Discerning cricket fans want to watch the real thing, a dogfight between two top class teams.
Then again, there are people like me, who will enjoy watching a bunch of park cricketers. I think we're known as 'cricket tragics'!