Who will be McGrath's 500th wicket?

[Richard]

Oh please.
Tresco edged McGrath once through the slips, that's dismissal #5
A credible LBW was turned down...that's #6...
Need I go on?

Had him missed at slip? Don't remember that. I remember Gillespie having 2 of them missed (1 went between Gilchrist and Warne, the other was dropped by Hayden) but none off McGrath. Don't remember the lbw, either, maybe you could give venues, over-referances, etc?

 

[Steulen]

The slip (might actually have been gully) one:

1st Test at Brisbane, 2002

2.4 McGrath to Trescothick, no run, good ball takes it high on the bat and martyn takes the ball high to his right but drops the catch

And with the LBW my memory was faulty, it was a 'nearly bowled' one. BTW, McGrath did dismiss Tresco four overs later in near-identical fashion:

2nd Test at Adelaide:
17.1 McGrath to Trescothick, no run, tries to leave one, catches the
bat, nearly onto his stumps

 

[Richard]

Yes, I remember the Martyn one now, don't know how I forgot it.
Nearly bowled isn't much, though. Gillespie should already have had him by both the nearly and the actual.

 

[Mister Wright]

We don't know, because we don't know who'd play. But if Butcher was to open with him, I can categorically, certainly, beyond-all-question assure you that Butcher would face first.

How can you be so sure that Butcher would open? What if England fielded first and Trescothick got injured? sheesh!

 

[Mister Wright]

No, it's not cricket, it's just something that's very similar to cricket.

What is it then?

I think everyone will agree it is cricket.

 

[Jamee999]

It's quite obviously 3-day-eventing Kyle.

 

[Richard]

What is it then?

It's a casual impression of cricket, which is played in total lightheartedness without many rules being observed.
It's no slight on anything that it isn't cricket, but it most certainly isn't pure or anything like it.

I think everyone will agree it is cricket.

The lawmakers won't, and they decide what is and isn't cricket.

 

[Richard]

How can you be so sure that Butcher would open? What if England fielded first and Trescothick got injured? sheesh!

I mentioned if Butcher opened with Strauss, then Butcher would face first.
Not that if such-and-such then Butcher would open.

 

[Swervy]

No, you can't play proper Test-matches against Bangladesh.

but the lawmakers say it is proper test cricket Richard!!!!

 

[Richard]

They do, indeed. Somehow I get the feeling they might not for too much longer.
So we must compile our own records to get the thing right.

 

[marc71178]

So when it suits you you take their definition, then when it doesn't, you change your mind...

 

[Mister Wright]

It's a casual impression of cricket, which is played in total lightheartedness without many rules being observed.
It's no slight on anything that it isn't cricket, but it most certainly isn't pure or anything like it.

The lawmakers won't, and they decide what is and isn't cricket.

And therefore is a version of cricket.

 

[Mister Wright]

I mentioned if Butcher opened with Strauss, then Butcher would face first.
Not that if such-and-such then Butcher would open.

No you mentioned that it was apsurd to say that Strauss would open if Trescothick was injured, then you went on about Butcher, nobody else even mentioned about replacements or anything of the like. You took a discussion that was more of a joke than anything and decided to make an argument out of it - you cannot help yourself.

 

[tooextracool]

No you mentioned that it was apsurd to say that Strauss would open if Trescothick was injured, then you went on about Butcher, nobody else even mentioned about replacements or anything of the like. You took a discussion that was more of a joke than anything and decided to make an argument out of it - you cannot help yourself.

err i think he said that if tresco were injured and butcher opened with strauss, butcher would face the first ball.

 

[Richard]

No you mentioned that it was apsurd to say that Strauss would open if Trescothick was injured, then you went on about Butcher, nobody else even mentioned about replacements or anything of the like. You took a discussion that was more of a joke than anything and decided to make an argument out of it - you cannot help yourself.

What I said was that it was absurd to assume that Strauss would definately face first if Trescothick was injured; and I then pointed-out that if he were to open with Butcher there is no question Butcher would face first.

 

[Richard]

And therefore is a version of cricket.

No, is something like cricket.

 

[Richard]

So when it suits you you take their definition, then when it doesn't, you change your mind...

Have I ever denied that "Test-matches" against Bangladesh won't be defined as such?
All I've said is that any fool can tell they don't deserve to be grouped in the same set as matches against Test-class opposition.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, is something like cricket.

No, it is cricket.

 

[Richard]

It's not cricket, because it doesn't play by the rules of cricket.

 

[Mister Wright]

It's not cricket, because it doesn't play by the rules of cricket.

It doesn't need to.

But as long as there is a bat, a ball, some stumps (whether they be a wheelie bin or a bucket) a bowler and a batsman it is cricket.