If you look back in the 'fetch' archive, you'll find ian bell being plumb LBW to a Warne shooter in the 2005 Ashes. Warne admitted on Sunday on TV that is was actually a leg spinner which for some reason didn't turn. So, he did pick him...sort of...
PS just checked and it has disappeared from utube, but you know the one I mean I'm sure.
Also, Warne reckons that his favorite sledge ever was 'shermanator'. Actually, does anybody want to slag warne's commentary off. I find it difficult, as it is still a couple of levels above 'England should try harder' Botham.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Although I am obviously a chav and a know-nothing of the first order, I've really enjoyed Warne's commentary. A slight balance to the Anglo-centric nature of the rest of the commentary team, and 'matey' and jokey enough to be sometimes amusing, but with enough knowledge to give his opinions a bit of weight. 7 and a half out of 10.
Didn't hear much of Warne, what with only being able to listen to TMS and read the Guardian OBO.
Opinions regarding his input, however, seem to be overwhelmingly positive.
once a cunt, always a cunt...
or, a cunt never changes its cuntishness?
but, he's ok. aggers did say warne tends to see things through 'gold and green glasses'.
the analysis of australian bowlers in england is very interesting indeed.
many of my australian facebook colleagues have been going on and on (maybe even whingeing) about the fact we cheated. i don't care, we won. but it is a bit pathetic coming from the nation that collectively decided that they would never walk (apart from gilly), and that they would claim questionable catches - and even would refuse to enter into gentleman's agreements prematch to not claim disputed catches. see opening two lines for my response.
I would ignore any Australians who make such remarks ben. They are being ridiculous and were in 2005 over Gary Pratt. I can't believe that Aussies have the nerve to call us 'wingeing poms'.
It is just another attempt to find an explanation for their loss other than that they got beaten fairly and squarely.
Scouring the 'blogosphere' over lunch and found this badly written but correct summary of the problem Ben faces:
"The facts remain that the gamesmanship Australia has performed for years in all sports is accepted by their players when opponents employ it in return, but the piss pants fans spit the dummy left and right because it aggrieves them beyond normal acceptance to be defeated, particularly by the English. This chip on the shoulder about England, and general dismissal of "the Poms" as shit is puerile and cowardly."
My solution to this particular problem is to try to not know any Australians.
Also:
from Mike Selvey on these pages in 2007:
However, it is the use of cameras to attempt to adjudicate on low catches....that is most disconcerting. Time and again this has been demonstrated to be fundamentally flawed..... The nature of camera angles - particularly at low level, with foreshortening in magnification, impinging shadow and general blurriness of image - made it seem as if every catch had been picked from the ground. It took no time for the players to twig that here was an escape clause and so even the most obviously squeaky clean low slip catch was treated as a felony, batsmen refused to leave the crease until it had been examined by the third umpire who by the very nature of the pictures that were offered to him had no option but to invoke the benefit of the doubt. Not one referral of the dozen or so made in the course of that series was upheld.
So contentious had the issue become, in fact, that the Australian broadcaster Channel Nine, never shy of opinions, took it upon itself to demonstrate, against its own interest, why this particular piece of televisual assistance should be used for nothing more than viewer delectation. To demonstrate, Tony Greig stood in a slip fielding position on the ground, back of his hand on the turf, with a ball in his palm: the resulting camera shots, those that would be used in determining such decisions, showed what some might term indisputable evidence that the ball was on the ground. Later, in England, Channel 4 went through precisely that same process, using Dermot Reeve, to precisely the same end.
Also, Jarms, I should get out to Australia and suffer the full-force of Aussie 'mateship' before you say you like Warne's 'matey-ness'!
Type mateship into google:
"Mateship is an Australian cultural idiom that embodies equality, loyalty and friendship. There are two types of mateship, the inclusive and the exclusive; the inclusive is in relation to a shared situation (e.g., employment, sports, or hardship), whereas the exclusive type is toward a third party (e.g., a person that you have just met). Russel Ward, in The Australian Legend (1958), saw the concept as a central one to the Australian people. Mateship derives from mate, meaning friend, commonly used in Australia as an amicable form of address. Mateship can also be expressed in such qualities as loyalty to one's mates in preference to the law."
During the 1999 Australian constitutional referendum there was some consideration regarding the inclusion of the term "mateship" in the preamble of the Australian constitution.
If not going anywhere near australia or other australians for the rest of my life is the price I pay for enjoying Warne's commentary, then so be it.
Post a Comment