TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- The Ashes 2006/07
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 »
i just got back from work.
so who won???
or was it a draw?
Australian won 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dean Millson Australian won |
was listening to Billy Cunningham on SEN in the car on the way home - he is still fun-E as hell and it's been nearly 20yrs since his albums came out ... CLASSICS!
Oh and ...
WE WON
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trance Nutter amazing fightback, to come back from nowhere like that, awesome effort. |
who would pick Ian?
personally Monty has to come in for Giles to start with. Giles hasn't troubled the Aussies at all this series and even in that final session, could get any turn out of the rough. Both Harmison and Anderson need to go but for who is the question? England battling without Jones! Along with Flintoff in the last series he was the main destroyer but unfortunately he's injured for you blokes. Unless England have an ace up their sleave in terms of a pace bowler, the likes of Ponting, Hussey and to a lesser extent Clarke will continue to dominate.
Batting I wouldn't say is a major disaster, however Collingwood and Pieterson cannot be expected to perform for the rest of the side. Cook, Strauss, Bell and Flintoff don't or should I say havn't looked up for it at all.
oh yeah what a game!! far out that was great
put that in your pipe and smoke it raistlin! brilliant match, what a fight back by the aussies!! you could easily see how excited the team was to win this won, they deserve it!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by 00soups00 but goddamn it bill lawry stop jacking off over Warney on the air! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by S_madis who would pick Ian? personally Monty has to come in for Giles to start with. Giles hasn't troubled the Aussies at all this series and even in that final session, could get any turn out of the rough. Both Harmison and Anderson need to go but for who is the question? England battling without Jones! Along with Flintoff in the last series he was the main destroyer but unfortunately he's injured for you blokes. Unless England have an ace up their sleave in terms of a pace bowler, the likes of Ponting, Hussey and to a lesser extent Clarke will continue to dominate. Batting I wouldn't say is a major disaster, however Collingwood and Pieterson cannot be expected to perform for the rest of the side. Cook, Strauss, Bell and Flintoff don't or should I say havn't looked up for it at all. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ian Vaughan (c) strauss bell pietersen collingwood flintoff read (WK) plunkett hoggard anderson panesar |
In other news, this is crap.
| quote: |
| Shoaib and Asif acquitted Osman Samiuddin December 5, 2006 The saga continues: First the ban and, then, complete acquittal � Getty Images Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif have been acquitted by the tribunal appointed to review their appeals against the drugs ban imposed on them by an earlier committee. The three-man committee, headed by Justice Fakhruddin Ebrahim, voted two to one in favour of the acquittal. Haseeb Ahsan, former Test cricketer, and Ebrahim were in favour of the acquittal while the third member, Danish Zaheer, dissented. "This appeal committee holds that Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammad Asif will not be deemed to have committed a doping offence," Ibrahim told reporters in Karachi. "The ban and punishment imposed by the earlier tribunal is hereby set aside as being contrary to the provision of laws." A 30-page plus judgement (to read the full text of the judgement click here) for released by the committee detailed the reasons for their decision and though they are extensive, one significant theme that emerges from it is problems with the workings of the previous committee. In particular, concern has been raised over the fact that while the original body was constituted to work within the guidelines of the PCB's anti-doping policy, the punishment it decreed - and the benchmarks it derived them from - were based on the ICC's anti-doping regulations. The ruling concludes that both players were able to prove 'exceptional circumstances', in that neither was fully aware of the substances they were taking. Crucially, it points out that 'exceptional circumstances', as defined by the PCB and the ICC were signficantly different and that while the previous committee used ICC's definition of the term, it was bound to use the PCB's. The role of the PCB in ensuring their players were not only fully aware of banned substances but also understood the literature that they had been provided has also been highlighted in the report. "It is plainly evident that neither Shoaib Akhtar nor Mohammad Asif were ever warned or cautioned against taking supplements," the judgement reads. "Hence, this committee is of the considered view that both players have successfully established that they held an honest and reasonable belief that the supplements ingested by them did not contain any prohibited substances." The report also includes an 11-page note of dissent from Zaheer, the third member of the committee. He points out flaws in the testing procedures carried out by the PCB and argues, on that basis, that the whole process should be repeated, new samples provided and fresh verdicts given. Bilal Minto, one of the lawyers representing Shoaib, told Cricinfo that the decision was a good one, but highlighted that the PCB had also let down the players. "We are very happy about the judgement obviously. But it is clear that the PCB's level of educating players about anti-doping legislation is poor. As lawyers, even we struggled to make sense of their anti-doping regulations so expecting players to be able to understand it is not right." Shoaib, banned for two years, and Asif, for one year, appealed after they were found guilty for testing positive for the banned anabolic steroid nandrolone in dope tests that were internally conducted by the PCB at the end of September. The ICC did not have any immediate reaction. "Malcolm Speed is currently in Uganda and we can't comment on the issue unless we have all the details," said Brian Murgatroyd, the ICC spokesman. "We need to go through the judgement and also get the PCB's version before making any comment." The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), in charge of monitoring drugs in sport, said they needed to discuss the matter with the ICC. Frederic Donze, their media relations officer, told Cricinfo: "We will now review the reasons for the decision, liaise with the ICC and consider whether to exercise its right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport." The original tribunal which had imposed the ban was chaired by barrister Shahid Hamid and included Intikhab Alam, the former Pakistan captain, and Waqar Ahmed, a doping expert. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trance Nutter I'd agree with that. Maybe not Anderson though, he hasn't done much. However I suppose its a bigger risk to bring in Mahmood than to keep him. However its movement of that ball which cuased us problems last year and Mahmood does get some decent movement (from memory) And yes I know Pieterson does have a better average at 4 than 5, but I'd keep Collingwood at 4 for the moment. No point mucking with those two. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trance Nutter In other news, this is crap. Asif I can sort of understand. He was a junior player, never been to a drugs seminar, was from a rural village with few communications and had a very poor understanding of English and stopped as soon as the doctor told him to. But Shoaib, thats crap. He's a senior player, been to drugs education seminars, has good understanding of English. He should have known that he needs to check all supplements with the team doctor (which he didn't do). Shoaib has no excuse in my books. |
How shocking is that decision.
It will be very interesting to see how the ICC responds as from what i heard on the radio this morning they are signed to WADA which puts the responsibility squarely on the athlete for what they put in their own body.
Perhaps we'll really see how much pull the sub-continent has over the game now (even the Hair issue has probably already illustrated this). I don't see how the ICC cannot condemn this (or even try to overturn it) if they are truly there for the good of the game.
Not really on the current topic but i am really dissapointed the game wasnt at least a draw. I feel as though now the sparkle has gone out of the series, a 1-1 tie so far would have been terrific and maybe got me interested in cricket again.
COME ON ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PauLie_C COME ON ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by PauLie_C SHIT ON ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
MONTY!!! 



that's why we want him in 
monty was so happy
good to see why England held out on Panesar for so long 
*MS Panesar (sla) 1.1overs 1maiden 0runs 1wicket 0.00
bowling panny...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Ian MONTY!!! ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() that's why we want him in |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Trance Nutter Duncan Fletcher will probably congratulate himself on a masterstroke selection there |
definitely. for every 2 or 3 runs he maybe costs in bad fielding, he bowls better than about 3 ashley giles. | quote: |
| Originally posted by Teflon_Teapot monty was so happy |
its alright, he just got the symonds treatment 
pft symonds out to a poo ball, story of his career
in 20 overs Monty has done more than Giles in 2 tests
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.