CA Chairman's XI v Indians at Canberra Dec 19-21

[Earl]

Chairmans XI 0/100 chasing 150.

Khawaja on 56 and Hughes on 42.

I know they are only warm up games but sheesh Indias attack looks thin.

 

[Big_Bad_Shark_Fan]

theyve agreed on a draw at 2.30pm??

 

[BunniesMan]

Everyone calls for more warm up tour games, then they get em and stop playing early...after threatening to walk off earlier.

 

[_goParra]

Everyone calls for more warm up tour games, then they get em and stop playing early...after threatening to walk off earlier.

yeah... dont let the facts stand in the way of a good story :roll:

 

[aussies1st]

Was pretty ironic considering how desperate India were for a hit out that and then they end the game with a whole session to go.

 

[_goParra]

Was pretty ironic considering how desperate India were for a hit out that and then they end the game with a whole session to go.

:roll:

It was an agreement between both sides to bat for 30 overs each....

At least verify your facts before having a go....

With the game between Indians and Cricket Australia Chairman's XI heading for a draw, the two sides took advantage of the match not being a first-class fixture to decide to bat for 30 overs each on the final day.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/content/current/story/546353.html

 

[BunniesMan]

yeah... dont let the facts stand in the way of a good story :roll:

They had a sook at the rain and threatened to f**k off to Melbourne earlier in the game.

:roll:

It was an agreement between both sides to bat for 30 overs each....

At least verify your facts before having a go....



http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/content/current/story/546353.html

FFS you don't even understand why your logic is geniused do you?

The fact that there was an agreement doesn't change anything, infact it makes it even harder to believe why they didn't play more.

Why make it a 30 over each way thing when you know that'll kill half the day.

Why not 45 overs? More time to bowl, more time to bat.

They made it clear on more than one occasion they had little interest in getting the most out of this tour game.

That is dissapointing because it's hard to get any low profit tour games out of money hungry administrators.

 

[aussies1st]

:roll:

It was an agreement between both sides to bat for 30 overs each....

At least verify your facts before having a go....



http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-india-2011/content/current/story/546353.html

Did they or did they not end with a session to spare? Let me answer that for you to save you the trouble, yes they did. So my facts are just fine thank you very much.

 

[_goParra]

They had a sook at the rain and threatened to f**k off to Melbourne earlier in the game.

FFS you don't even understand why your logic is geniused do you?

No they did not... it was just a casual remark made by some support staff member. Read first before jumping to conclusions. BTW the link is from smh not some biased Indian source :roll:

A potential diplomatic furore threatened to erupt yesterday morning after a chain of ''Chinese whispers'' started by a ''flippant'' remark from a member of India's support staff, not involved in team management, worried that wet weather would interfere with the team's Boxing Day Test preparations.
''He made a flippant comment 'we may as well go to Melbourne','' said Manuka Oval's venue manager, Matthew Tokley, who will today file a report to the ACT government's media explaining yesterday's brouhaha. ''It was a case of Chinese whispers. That's then completely blown out of proportion, coming down to a threat from the Indian team to fly to Melbourne which is completely not the case.''


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/...#ixzz1h3uLvN3V

The fact that there was an agreement doesn't change anything, infact it makes it even harder to believe why they didn't play more.

Why make it a 30 over each way thing when you know that'll kill half the day.

Why not 45 overs? More time to bowl, more time to bat.

They made it clear on more than one occasion they had little interest in getting the most out of this tour game.

That is dissapointing because it's hard to get any low profit tour games out of money hungry administrators.

Did they or did they not end with a session to spare? Let me answer that for you to save you the trouble, yes they did. So my facts are just fine thank you very much.

Could it be anything to do with the weather... cloudy & gloomy.

geez it donsn't take much for you guys to start jumping against India.

 

[aussies1st]

Could it be anything to do with the weather... cloudy & gloomy.

geez it donsn't take much for you guys to start jumping against India.

So now the captains are Nostradamus now are they? They predicted it would be cloudy and gloomy at the end of play when they made this agreement?

And geez it didn't take long for you to get so defensive. Where was I jumping against India? I said it was ironic they would agree to an early end to play when they were so worried about losing valuable practice time. When did saying something was ironic become jumping against India? Trust me when I'm jumping on India you will know.

 

[_goParra]

So now the captains are Nostradamus now are they? They predicted it would be cloudy and gloomy at the end of play when they made this agreement?

And geez it didn't take long for you to get so defensive. Where was I jumping against India? I said it was ironic they would agree to an early end to play when they were so worried about losing valuable practice time. When did saying something was ironic become jumping against India? Trust me when I'm jumping on India you will know.

have you been there, it was cloudy all day AND first two days play was called off early due to bad light / rain.

why is this even an issue, it was not even a proper FC game. It was to give the Indians and aussie test hopefuls a run, which it did do.

The players & administrators havn't had an issue with it... so I dont see why you two seem to go on and on :roll:

 

[aussies1st]

When did I say it was an issue? It was ironic so I said just that, when did it ever mean I had an issue? You are the one that made it an issue all I did was say it was ironic.