williamjm Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I am very pleased by how well the women are doing in the Ashes, though it is a mystery to me why there is no equivalent men's competition. I've heard some rumours that there was also a Men's Ashes tour this winter, but they didn't sound very plausible. The people believing those rumours had obviously overlooked that it would make no sense for there to be an Ashes tour starting three months after the previous series ending, and claiming that the England team who comfortably won at home would then be whitewashed 5-0 seems too absurd to be true. I can only assume the people making those claims are the same sorts of people who say there were multiple sequels to Highlander or more than one season of Heroes, it's probably best to ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJ Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think you're cofused, william. It was England's little girl's team that was beaten 5-0 recently. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 So there's a notable silence here on the plans of India, England and Australia to hijack international cricket for their own financial benefit. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/710723.html Handing control of international cricket to those 3 countries is a terrible notion. I just hope they don't buy the agreement of the other full member nations. ICC may be in need of some serious reform, but creating a "security council" of 4 members 3 of which are permanent members, with effectively a veto over anything the 4th member might want to do hence the 4th member becoming a fig leaf of inclusion of the lesser nations and merely a rubber stamper is just wrong. Us smaller nations are very much relying on South Africa to smack down this proposal. Hopefully NZ cricket will be a vocal opponent of this coup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh_wulff Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I think you're cofused, william. It was England's little girl's team that was beaten 5-0 recently. :PThat is unfair to little girls' cricket playing ability!( I reckoned that apostrophe looked wrong without the s ie girls' vs girls's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 That is unfair to little girls' cricket playing ability!( I reckoned that apostrophe looked wrong without the s ie girls' vs girls's) I thought it would be sans apostrophe when phrased "England's little girls team" i.e. a team full of little girls from England. I think double possessives look weird. But perhaps it's right. I guess it is "England's men's team" since men is the plural and you don't say "England's men team" same would be for women. OTOH you'd say "England's male team" not "England's male's team". But if little girls were to be described in that way it would be "England's prepubescent female(s?) team". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh_wulff Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.aspI found the rules section 2. It is girls' not girls's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 So there's a notable silence here on the plans of India, England and Australia to hijack international cricket for their own financial benefit. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/710723.html I read the same article yesterday and wondered about it too. It's really just entrenching what has already been the case. While there has not been a formal veto structure, generally the decisions have operated as if one was in place. Little members have always depended on the largesse of stronger members, and even under the Future Tours program which mandates every Test nation playing each other within four years, it's clear that some series are much bigger and longer than others. I'm not sure that very much will change even if these administrative plans go through, the ICC as a decision-making body has never had as much impact on the game as individual boards. Nevertheless as you say, South Africa is really the one left out here. Pakistan and the West Indies boards are basket cases, and Bangladesh is too small, leaving Sri Lanka and New Zealand as the other ones who might be aggrieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 So there's a notable silence here on the plans of India, England and Australia to hijack international cricket for their own financial benefit. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/710723.html Handing control of international cricket to those 3 countries is a terrible notion. I just hope they don't buy the agreement of the other full member nations. ICC may be in need of some serious reform, but creating a "security council" of 4 members 3 of which are permanent members, with effectively a veto over anything the 4th member might want to do hence the 4th member becoming a fig leaf of inclusion of the lesser nations and merely a rubber stamper is just wrong. Any idea the ICC come up usually seems to be a bad idea, and this one seems to be a particularly bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I read the same article yesterday and wondered about it too. It's really just entrenching what has already been the case. While there has not been a formal veto structure, generally the decisions have operated as if one was in place. Little members have always depended on the largesse of stronger members, and even under the Future Tours program which mandates every Test nation playing each other within four years, it's clear that some series are much bigger and longer than others. I'm not sure that very much will change even if these administrative plans go through, the ICC as a decision-making body has never had as much impact on the game as individual boards. Nevertheless as you say, South Africa is really the one left out here. Pakistan and the West Indies boards are basket cases, and Bangladesh is too small, leaving Sri Lanka and New Zealand as the other ones who might be aggrieved. And they'll only get worse if they are left even more out in the cold than they already are. Especially with India calling the shots and the animosity between those two countries at almost every level Pakistan will probably be the biggest loser if this plan comes to fruition. Was a time when Windies/Aus games drew the biggest crowds in Aussie. So while it still required one of the big 3 to be hosting the series the cricket coffers benefitted more from the Windies being there than England or India. If you concentrate power, money and international match time at the top the game's development stagnates. Probably the worst of the proposals is that India, England and Aussie permanemently remain as the top 3 playing nations regardless of form. England especially spends a fair bit of its time at number 4 or 5 in the test rankings. This is an interesting graph of historical test rankings vhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Test_Rankings_since_Jun_2003.png while it's true that the big 3 look like they've spent the most time at 1, 2 and 3 there have been periods in fairly recent history where at least one and sometimes two of those countries have been quite low down the rankings. Even Aussie in recent years has spent a bit of time at 4 and 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewJ Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 That is unfair to little girls' cricket playing ability!( I reckoned that apostrophe looked wrong without the s ie girls' vs girls's) Oops. Yeah, misplaced. I should have written girls' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alester Florent Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Us smaller nations are very much relying on South Africa to smack down this proposal. Hopefully NZ cricket will be a vocal opponent of this coup. The NZ board seems to be the one at the moment who most consistently stands up to India (in particular) and tries to vote for what it sees as the good of the game rather than chasing cash. Unfortunately it's the only one generally willing to stand on principle; occasionally England or Australia side with them but usually for their own reasons, and everyone else just takes the money and shuts up. Maybe the recent politics with South Africa and India will mobilise SA to stand against this proposal at least. I have to wonder where this latest proposal came from: is it India making an "offer" to the two other powerful boards to neutralise their potential opposition to India's control of the world game, or is it England/Australia trying to retain power and relevance in the future through an alliance with India? Either way, I don't think it's good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Some great batting from Buttler. This is looking to be a good match...if the Aussies show up that is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Great bowling from Stokes. Damn gingers doing the job for England! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Awesome finish to the India-NZ ODI coming up here. NZ have been ahead all match but Jadeja and Ashwin have started batting beatifully out of nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 That was an incredible last over with 17 runs coming off it. NZ were very lucky not to lose it after playing so well for about 85 overs. I'm not sure why there was no attempt to bowl yorkers at the end. Jadeja eventually got used to the bouncers and hit a 6 and a 4 off short deliveries in the last over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Just leaving this here... :leaving: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 That is incredible! Is it real or photoshopped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Just leaving this here... :leaving: Haha, that's pretty awesome. Shattered into so many pieces! Great to see India getting their ass handed to them by the Kiwis. Hopefully they can keep it up! Not so great to see Bangladesh getting their ass handed to them by SL. But I kinda expected it given Australia's good form. Never had both my teams do well at the same time, dammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubby Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 That is incredible! Is it real or photoshopped? Dunno. Who was it? I thought Graeme Smith but couldn't remember if he throws left hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Smith bowls right-arm offspin, so probably not him - my initial thought was Andrew Strauss. Could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.