Jamie Cox bags the shyte of our cricket team/admin

[saintspremiers]

So of all staff sitting watching no-one had presence of mind to get Warner back on? #unforgiveable #unbelieveable
9:12 PM - 24 Nov 2016

That's his tweet re the scandal of Warner going off when Silf Ifrica were 9 down and therefore him being denied opening the batting after the opportunist decarlation by Faf Du Cheat

[To the top]

All's well that ends well.

I wouldn't think they were too worried about the Queensland Captain Khawaja opening with his State team mate and especially as they are coming off a match winning partnership in the last Shield game where both made hundreds - so batted together for a long time.

Having Khawaja at the other end may have been a bonus for Renshaw.

Opening with someone like Warner, scoring as he does, requires a certain character at the other end because you do not want to look at the Scoreboard and see Warner on his score, you on yours and feel a pressure to contribute to the scoring rate - this is why the mature Rogers was such a good foil for Warner.

Renshaw is going to have to learn that.

[8856brother]

Great tactic from the Aussies. Finally got something right.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Tapatalk

[elizabethr]

Warner would have snicker one for sure.

[Devilhead]

Faf fell for it hook line and sinker - Thought he was out thinking our boys and yet he it was he that got played

That last wicket partnership was going along nicely as well

[saint3d]

Faf fell for it hook line and sinker - Thought he was out thinking our boys and yet he it was he that got played

That last wicket partnership was going along nicely as well

Yeah an extended rest for his shoulder is really going to hurt Warner's chances today.

I wonder how many first innings have been declared on day one, and how many of those have resulted in victory?

You read it here first; Australia to win by an innnings.

[bigcarl]

Boof etc should have been on top of this. Most unprofessional and seized upon by the cunning and devious Du Plicity.

However there is also the real possibility that Warner didn't want to bat last night and left it to a night watchman. If that is the case I hope he has to wait until twilight to get a bat.

[To the top]

Given where this series has gone to, from chucking the ball into the turf at Perth, to further ball tampering in Hobart and the convoiction and now this, Australia should have appealed and had Fluff de Cheat dismissed "Handling the Ball".

Simply, from the outset you know that a batsman does NOT handle the ball, and the Laws of the game include as a mode of dismissal "Handling the Ball".

Australia should have appealed and had Fluff De Cheat dismissed "Handling the Ball".

If you give it, you should expect to receive it.

As for any defence of Fluff de Cheat and using an introduced substance in his mouth to tamper with the condition of the ball he has no defence.

Once upon a time you looked to protect and shine one side of the ball, including by returning on the full to the 'keeper.

Now you attempt to rough up one side of the ball and to make it heavier so it swings toward the heavy and rough side.

So Fluff de Cheat is correctly again convicted as a cheat.

[stevie]

why is this in the main forum?

[Bernard Shakey]

why is this in the main forum?

Jamie Cox!

[elizabethr]

Would take anything Cox said with a grain of salt.

[stevie]

why is this in the main forum?

Jamie Cox!

Sorry but not sure who he is

[st.rick]

why is this in the main forum?

Jamie Cox!

Sorry but not sure who he is

GM Football Performance at St Kilda FC

[elizabethr]

why is this in the main forum?

Jamie Cox!

Sorry but not sure who he is

Formerly long serving Tasmanian cricketer.

[bigcarl]

Given where this series has gone to, from chucking the ball into the turf at Perth, to further ball tampering in Hobart and the convoiction and now this, Australia should have appealed and had Fluff de Cheat dismissed "Handling the Ball".

Simply, from the outset you know that a batsman does NOT handle the ball, and the Laws of the game include as a mode of dismissal "Handling the Ball".

Australia should have appealed and had Fluff De Cheat dismissed "Handling the Ball".

If you give it, you should expect to receive it.

As for any defence of Fluff de Cheat and using an introduced substance in his mouth to tamper with the condition of the ball he has no defence.

Once upon a time you looked to protect and shine one side of the ball, including by returning on the full to the 'keeper.

Now you attempt to rough up one side of the ball and to make it heavier so it swings toward the heavy and rough side.

So Fluff de Cheat is correctly again convicted as a cheat.

I agree with you. Mr Du Plicity should be doing as much ball tampering as he likes in this Test ...
on the sidelines.