www-foxsports-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org
Delighted you decided to take a snipe as since we alI had to endure the absolute tedium of your continuous, laborious posts on this thread yesterday with your thickhead series of dumbass responses re the Bairstow stumping, which I found hard to believe, I was proud of restraining myself at the time, although feeling a touch guilty at leaving it to others to respond to your inanities. But I simply felt they had far more patience than myself, and I was best to control myself ... nobly. But thanks for that.
Aren't you meant to be hibernating with the rest of the colony this time of the year? Can see you're struggling by the punctuation trouble.
Not for some like MDJ. Struggled over about 50 recent posts. Just stumped by it all.
Oops mis-read your final 3 words at a glance - thought you were using another word to characterize Baz.
Aren't you meant to be hibernating with the rest of the colony this time of the year? Can see you're struggling by the punctuation trouble.
Still such a tiny entity. Tiny content. Tiny courage. Still such a lightweight. Watch you don't get stepped on.
Edit: Oops, got it wrong. No content whatsoever. Just an ant nibble.
What a brilliant piece, nearly barked a lung out I was laughin so hard.My goodness this may be these best yet. Absolutely hysterical.
The spirit of cricket was murdered in cold blood by sunburnt thugs - and the game might never recover
It's often said that to win a Test match, you need to take 20 wickets. At Lord's in 2023, Australia proved that this is…www.theroar.com.au
The Headingly looks likely to be very weather effected. Lots of rain forecast in Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
You are not seriously comparing this to what Carey did?is this fair dinkum? Funny
Jonny stumping Samit Patel playing Nottinghamshire v Yorkshire:
Two Aussie changes loom, Poms confirm XI gamble as Ashes pitch revealed 24 hrs out — Ashes Daily
Two Aussie changes loom, Poms confirm XI gamble as Ashes pitch revealed 24 hrs outwww.foxsports.com.au
It was premeditated! It’s irrelevant that he threw it straight away! That’s what makes it worse.
So what if it was premeditated? They noticed a tendency in a player and exploited it. It’s what test cricket is all about. It’s part of why they’re called tests. Did you read what Bairstowe said after he took the wicket? As for Saint McCullum, he did this twice! All very well for him to say he thinks better of it 10 years later when he knows he’s never going to be put in the situation again.
Classic leon. A one man echoDelighted you decided to take a snipe as since we alI had to endure the absolute tedium of your continuous, laborious posts on this thread yesterday with your thickhead series of dumbass responses re the Bairstow stumping, which I found hard to believe, I was proud of restraining myself at the time, although feeling a touch guilty at leaving it to others to respond to your inanities. But I simply felt they had far more patience than myself, and I was best to control myself ... nobly. But thanks for that.
Now, under provocation, I don't feel the need to hold back.
Your series of tedious comments disputing the Bairstow stumping just amazed me for their repetitive dumbness. It's really simple. If you are out of the crease and the fielding team knock off the bails, you are out stumped. Batsmen who choose to bat out of their crease for their own reasons must ensure they are back inside the crease until each particular ball is regarded as dead e.g. left the keeper's hands, on return to the bowler; ump has called over etc. If you bothered to watch the game, you may have noticed Marnus, Smiith and Warner for their continuous vigilance in getting back after playing a shot etc. Of course, Bairstow having a ping at Marnus' stumps but misssed. But you seem so gullible that, despite the overwhelming weight of evidence about the ruthless disregard for respecting the game shown by the English in this and several other contexts, that Stokes and Baz wouldn't claim a wicket that way. Did they bounce Lyon while he was on one leg btw? How about denied a runner by MCC rules?
If the ball has passed through to the keeper, batsman needs the ball to be dead before walking out of the crease. Otherwise can be stumped.
I could go on, but had enough of your obdurate thick-headedness. I was absolutely stumped (as many others) by your inability to understand the rules of stumping. For the English or you to invoke the nebulous nonsense of the supposed "spirit of the game" is just naive and foolish given their history or do you just choose to ignore that?
Maybe just out yourself for being an English supporter in denial? One side English or parents? Dual passport? Or apologist? Or just really struggling to comprehend. It's simple: stumped is stumped. So no need for you to be stumped any more I hope.
Same rules owned by the MCC that came up with how Starc's catch wasn't one.
But all the reasoning you gave in your cheap snipe at me was so hard to cope with.
They’ve taken advantage of a guys ignorance and in some ways innocence to the fact he was putting his wicket in danger. It’s cheap. And dishonourable.
He’s at the *smile* stumps the batsman is in danger of being stumped every ball. He’s aware the keeper is able to stump him, he had basicallY overbalanced. It’s very different to bairstow. Bairstow marked his guard and then went down to do some gardening. I’ll guarantee if Carey was at the stumps though he wouldn’t have walked off before Carey had moved the ball on.
