[nibb]

This was taken after our innings about 4 weeks ago.

We were 38-2 after 8 overs!

It's listed on the Cricinfo website as the 2nd highest score ever in 45 over non-first class cricket.

[CFC1]

Congrats...493 in 45 overs? That's some going!

[nibb]

I am not one of those guys by the way!!

I wish I had half the talent!!

I was there though and it was absolute mayhem, the guy on the left hit 24 x 6's!

[Leej]

Originally Posted by nibb

This was taken after our innings about 4 weeks ago.

We were 38-2 after 8 overs!

It's listed on the Cricinfo website as the 2nd highest score ever in 45 over non-first class cricket.

That's a phenomenal score after a steady start .

The highest score on the website( haven't looked yet) isn't by the team you were playing against, is it ..

[nibb]

No, they were right off and all out for 175!

No the highest was Barcelona v Costa Del Sol!!

[Noggin1980]

12.3 an over for the 37 overs that the partnership was together

[nibb]

Originally Posted by Noggin1980

12.3 an over for the 37 overs that the partnership was together

I know it had to be seen to be believed!!

[Leej]

I bet the two batsmen out early took a ribbing off their mates

[nibb]

Actually the opening bowlers bowled ok at the start, and afterwards everyone was too ****** to rib the other guys as the champagne was flowing to celebrate the records falling!!

[CFC1]

From 1 remarkable match to another (I hope you don't mind!): I see hampshire used 11 bowlers in their match against Middlesex yesterday, including the wicketkeeper

That can't have happened too often.......

[Ian J]

The use of "joke bowlers" is a device to feed a team with runs in order to quickly reach a pre-agreed score wherupon the batters will declare having set an attainable target for a run chase.

Cricketers tend to guard their statistics carefully and no bowler would like "joke runs" worsening their average which is why they use batsmen for this task.

[CFC1]

What was that debacle at the Oval today?

[Ian J]

Pakistan were effectively accused of cheating by the umpires so staged a protest by refusing to come out after tea thus forfeiting the game.

Cricket balls lose their shape or get damaged and in such circumstances the umpires will replace the ball. In this case the umpires deemed that the damage had been caused deliberately and awarded five penalty runs to England as the batting side and allowed the English batsmen to choose the replacement ball.

Damaging a cricket ball deliberately is cheating so by the umpires actions the Pakistanis were deemed to be cheats.

[CFC1]

It made me chuckle a bit seeing Mike Atherton discussing the cheat storm, what with him being caught out rubbing some substance into the ball a few years back....

[MR ETOME]

Is there any evidence that they did actually cheat?
With all the cameras there it shouldn't be a problem to prove it.

[CFC1]

They were discussing it for at least a couple of hours and in that time they failed to show any video evidence of any wrongdoing...

[Leej]

A five run penalty seems a bit pathetic. Not much of a deterrent. Perhaps at least a hundred run penalty would be better.

[rio1981]

They're not exactly going to own up to it though are they? By walking off and making a statement of intent not to play, they are refuting the allegation. If they just keep on playing and take the punishment on the chin it sends out a message that they've been caught with their trousers down.

I wouldn't put it past the Pakistanis to cheat though, and it's normally pretty obvious when a cricket ball has been tampered with.

[Ian J]

Originally Posted by leej

A five run penalty seems a bit pathetic. Not much of a deterrent. Perhaps at least a hundred run penalty would be better.

I don't really understand the penalty that was imposed either. A few months ago Shahid Afridi was caught on camera scuffing up the pitch in order to give their spinners (including himself) some extra rough to aim at. He was banned for the next two test matches.

Deliberately tampering with the ball to make it reverse swing more is cheating as much as what Afridi did and an extra five runs awarded to the batting side is a ridiculous penalty as most bowlers would happily gouge a lump out of the cricket ball if they knew that it would only cost them five runs.

If the umpires knew who did it the individual should receive a lengthy ban. If they don't know who did it I don't see how they can be sure that it was done deliberately as Pietersen constantly battering a cricket ball against the boundary walls could also take lumps out of it.

What is it about England / Pakistan Test Matches that attracts so much controversy.

[Leej]

Originally Posted by Ian J

What is it about England / Pakistan Test Matches that attracts so much controversy.

The umpires? I don't know the history between Darly Hair and Pakistan but it must be pretty serious for Pakistan not wanting him to officiate. Wasn't that the same situation with that umpire involved in the Mike Gatting incident years ago.

[Ian J]

Some of the controversial issues surrounding Darrell Hair are listed on the Cricinfo site here but they seem to have missed out one or two as it was Hair who adjudged Inzi run out in Pakistan when it seems that he was merely trying to avoid being hit by a cricket ball thrown by Harmison.

I believe that it was also Hair who ordered one of the Pakistani bowlers out of the attack in the same series for constantly running on the pitch.

[RoNaLdiNhO]

lol Darrell Hair hes a right laugh its been belived for years he does not favour teams of colour. Come on lets admit it though great that we won the series but some of the decisions he got wrong was crazy in all the matchs all agaist the pakistanis. The best one was the nick he missed everyone in the crowd heard it hahahah.

[Leej]

Thanks for that site Ian J, added to favourites. I think the umpires have made a massive error.

Originally Posted by RoNaLdiNhO

Come on lets admit it though great that we won the series but some of the decisions he got wrong was crazy in all the matchs all agaist the pakistanis.

It is great that we won it after the Sri Lanka debacle. It just leaves a bit of a sour taste with all the umpiring errors. If ever there was a series that proved tv replays need to be used, this was it.

[Dubster]

Originally Posted by RoNaLdiNhO

lol Darrell Hair hes a right laugh its been belived for years he does not favour teams of colour. Come on lets admit it though great that we won the series but some of the decisions he got wrong was crazy in all the matchs all agaist the pakistanis. The best one was the nick he missed everyone in the crowd heard it hahahah.

The windies arent white and far as i know hair hasnt been involved in a problems with them so i dont think the colour issue is the problem.Perhaps its just the rep that follows pakistan which he finds the problem.

[Ian J]

I think that the anti Asian comments may be because he has no-balled the Sri Lankan Murali a lot feeling that his action is suspect - well so do most of the rest of the cricketing world

[huntere]

Originally Posted by nibb

This was taken after our innings about 4 weeks ago.

We were 38-2 after 8 overs!

It's listed on the Cricinfo website as the 2nd highest score ever in 45 over non-first class cricket.

Reminds of the "12th Man" recordings. An Oz impersonator doing all the commentary team. In one edition it was " Welcome back the MCG where Australia have made 535-3 off their 50 overs" One of those throw away lines you have to listen to twice.

If any cricket lover hasn't heard the 12th man. you should. Its hysterical

[joffy1780]

Originally Posted by Ian J

an extra five runs awarded to the batting side is a ridiculous penalty as most bowlers would happily gouge a lump out of the cricket ball if they knew that it would only cost them five runs.

That is a slight,nay huge,exaggeration.

[Astraeus]

Before this erupts into a debate on 'scratching', I thought I'd offer my congratulations - if that's the sentiment that is due - otherwise just amazement at what is a phenomenal score. With batting talent such as that, has the guy on the left ever figured there's a place for him in a Steve Harmison-impersonation competition?

[PRINCEGRINCH]

Darrell Hair has a long history with Pakistani & other sub-continent cricketing Nations. Below is a brief outline of the history between Darrel Hair & The Asian sub continent:

1 - In his first match as an international umpire in 1992, when India played Australia, Wisden noted that the game was "marred...by controversy over lbw decisions - eight times Indians were given out, while all but two of their own appeals were rejected".

2 - Infamously, in the match between Sri Lanka and Australia in 1995, he called Muttiah Muralitharan seven times in three overs for throwing. Wisden commented: "unusually, he made his judgement from the bowler's end, and several minutes passed before the crowd realised that Muralitharan's elbow, rather than his foot, was at fault."

3 - In the mid-90's quoted to have told the Pakistani Captain (Wasim Akram...I think) ""I hope you people will not in this series carry on appealing like monkeys", which could be considered racist.

4 - India's team in England last time they toured were unhappy at some of his decisions and three years later Hair had an altercation with then India coach Kapil Dev during a match against New South Wales.

5 - Umpires Darrell Hair and Peter Willey report Shoaib Akhtar for a suspicous bowling action. Shoaib was also reported a second time 16 months later, but was cleared both times.

6 - In 2004 Hair and fellow umpire Billy Bowden reported Pakistan fast bowler Shabbir Ahmed for a suspect bowling action for the 2nd time.

7 - March 2005, Harbhajan was reported for chuckiing for the 2nd time by Umpire Darrell Hair & the match referee Chris Broad.

8 - April/May 2005 Darrell Hair reported Pakistani bowler Shabir Ahmed for chucking.

9 - In a test match last November, he gave the Pakistan captain Inzaman-ul-Haq run out, even though Inzaman was standing in his crease and was merely jumping to avoid the ball which had been thrown by the English bowler at his stumps.

10 - In the same game, Hair was involved in two further controversial decisions against Pakistan players, Shahid Afridi and Salman Butt.

Bowlers Kumar Dharmasena (SL) Shoaib Malik (PAK) & Mohammed Hafeez (PAK) have also been called for their bowling actions by Umpire Hair & Chris Broad (Shoaib Malik on two different occasions).

[Ian J]

PRINCEGRINCH - I think that what you have pointed out is that there seem to be a number of problems concerning Asian bowlers.

He did infamously no-ball Muttiah Muralitharan several times for "chucking" but I don''t know of anyone within cricketing circles that doesn't agree with him. Murali's action was illegal under the existing laws which have now been changed, partly to suit him.

Bowlers reported for suspect actions have their actions examined by a panel of international experts and whilst Shabir Ahmed has twice been reported by Hair the international panel has agreed with him and suspended him twice until his action has been remodelled bringing it within the laws.

Hair may have been involved in an "incident" involving Shaid Afridi last year but it was all caught on camera and Afridi was quite clearly cheating. The match referee studied the vido evidence and banned Afridi for the next two Tests.

I think that one has to be really struggling to try and make his comments about "appealing like monkeys" appear racist. I don't remember who was playing in that game but several Pakistanis try and put pressure on the umpire by excessive appealing which takes the form of leaping up and down and screaming. Behaving like monkeys is an apt description for that type of behaviour and racism doesn't enter into it.

From memory Mushtaq Ahmed is about the worst offender that I have seen who co-incidentally is a Pakistani. He is still at it years later and Chris Reed of Notts was warned earlier this year when he had an altercation with Mushtaq about his excessive appealing