Originally posted by thaughbaeryes he should, he had the chance to exercise his conscience, there was no ethical dilemma!
In the end it was poor captaincy. Although I didn't see them it would appear Australia frittered their referrals away on marginal decisions and could have made Broad walk had they used them more wisely. Cook kept them up his sleeve and waved off Haddin. That Broad should be the scapegoat for poor captaincy is misapportionment ( is that even a word ? ) of blame.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePray tell, when was this golden age of English cricket chivalry?
Sigh, obviously you attended the Terry Thomas school for scoundrels! Haddin is not an Englishman, he cannot be expected to be guided by the same moral principles! The chivalric code has been torn asunder, replaced by a Realpolitik system of unprincipled expediency, its downright unEnglish and unmanly I say!
The 1930s perhaps?
3 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThe chivalric code has existed in England since the French troubadours started to immortalise the virtues of ladies in song, that it permeated to cricket through the common culture is hard to trace, but it did! Have you never seen the Indian Film Laggan, a cricket match between some naive Indian villagers and the crème of the British Raj? Even the villagers understood that an Englishmans word is his bond! To renegade on your debts in the service of the Raj was a heinous iniquity! Lloyds of London built an entire world empire from the understanding that it would make good on its promises! That it 'was not cricket', to renege!
Pray tell, when was this golden age of English cricket chivalry?
The 1930s perhaps?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderGo back a bit further than that. It has to be at least pre-1882.
Pray tell, when was this golden age of English cricket chivalry?
The 1930s perhaps?
"In the very first England vs Australia Test, W G Grace cheated so blatantly – running out a batsman who had stepped out of his crease to pat down a divot"
Originally posted by thaughbaerLOL, big Duncan was awesome, remember when he hospitalised those two dudes that tried to break into his house, thats justice!
I object to being given lessons on sporting chivalry by someone who comes from the same country that produced Duncan Ferguson.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBull.
If cricket is a game which reflects fair play at its highest level, he should have walked irrespective of whether the umpire gave him out or not, why? because that would have been in harmony with the, 'spirit of the game', now sadly being eroded by expediency, so called 'ethical dilemma' and references to 'what other players do'. Hard to respect that.
3 edits
Originally posted by Sicilian SausageI have a cricket team, its called India and it can wupp yo sorry A$$! any day! I am not bitter, i simply don't like to see the game suffer at the hands of unprincipled play. Those who defend this type of play are bounders and cads!
Come back when you've got a cricket team together. At the moment allyou have is a few paragraphs of bitter rhetoric.
Chripes almighty!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMost Indian batsmen will not walk either, plus the Indians have for the history of the modern game tried to force umpires into wrong decisions when their spinners are bowling with a bunch of close fielders around the bat, so your 'argument' falls flat on its ass.
I have a cricket team, its called India and it can wupp yo sorry A$$! any day! I am not bitter, i simply don't like to see the game suffer at the hands of unprincipled play. Those who defend this type of play are bounders and cads!
4 edits
Originally posted by Crowleyyou cannot reach me, your protestations are useless and meaningless and reverberate off some distant point in cyberspace like raindrops falling in the mouth of some Antarctic cave, you have insulted me without cause and I have nothing to give you and want nothing from you either, now if you apologise, I may forgive you, until then, please spare me.
Most Indian batsmen will not walk either, plus the Indians have for the history of the modern game tried to force umpires into wrong decisions when their spinners are bowling with a bunch of close fielders around the bat, so your 'argument' falls flat on its ass.