Congratulations to our gentlemen

[Long Run]

I got a promotion and a patent bonus today.

Not sure about the thread placement, but congratulations. Nice to hear good news.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Looks like what Meade is saying (if I've waded through all that criciketese correctly) is that England didn't really deserve to win; they just won on a lucky fluke...

There's an element of truth to that, LJ: but luck goes both ways and NZ also had their share of it during the tournament.

Re the play which Meade described so well:

Stokes hit a ball to the outfield; as our best batter, he must score two runs to stay "on strike" (that is, facing the last 2 balls). He dives along the ground, sliding to be safe for the second score. . . and the ball, thrown in by the outfielder toward the "catcher" in the hope of getting an out, strikes Stokes's bat and careens off over the boundary for four more runs.

I didn't see any of this but was following the play by play and listened to a lot of it on line, although in a Heidi moment the online radio feed crapped out for 'contractual reasons' a few minutes before the finish. This sort of thing happens in cricket and the players do not usually take advantage of it as they know it's a fluke. When the ball hit Stokes's bat and stared flying off towards the boundary the batsmen had every right to run and add to their score. However, and as almost always, they didn't run - in essence saying we know it's a fluke and we won't take the advantage from it, thus obeying one of the unwritten laws of cricket. The umpires of course have to obey the written laws which state that the instant the ball crosses the boundary rope (c.f., the fence in baseball) four runs are added to the score. Had the ball been stopped by the fielder just inside the boundary, there would have been no added run(s).

All this has become further complicated by an Australian ex-umpire saying that the on-field umpires got it wrong and that the total runs from the incident should have been five not six. All else being equal, England would then have lost. Far be it from me to suggest that an Australian might have some interest in fomenting some aggro between two of the teams they will have to beat at the next World Cup.

Of course the true cricket purists regard this shortened form of the game (the whole thing is done in about 8 hours! Can you believe that??!!) as no substitute for real cricket which takes five days with stops for lunch and tea on each day. It's a silly deviation designed for kittens, children and Americans with short attention spans. But it's a bit of fun so long as no-one takes it too seriously.

ETA: Oh, and Well Done, CP!

[Crackpot]

I got a promotion and a patent bonus today.

Not sure about the thread placement, but congratulations. Nice to hear good news.

What we really need another thread bashing/extolling the virtues of cricket ?

[Lord Jim]

I got a promotion and a patent bonus today.

Not sure about the thread placement, but congratulations. Nice to hear good news.

I assumed he posted it in this thread because he received those due to his outstanding play on his company cricket team...

[Bicycle Bill]

Of course the true cricket purists regard this shortened form of the game (the whole thing is done in about 8 hours! Can you believe that??!!) as no substitute for real cricket which takes five days with stops for lunch and tea on each day. It's a silly deviation designed for kittens, children and Americans with short attention spans. But it's a bit of fun so long as no-one takes it too seriously.

FIVE DAYS??    Bloody hell!!

It took only three days more than that for three American astronauts to go to the moon and back.... and that included killing almost a full 24 hours puttering around on the lunar surface.
(actually, golf wasn't played on the moon until the third landing in 1971, but still...  )

And BTW — what's with

... silly deviation designed for kittens, children and Americans with short attention spans.

Out of all the posters on this board, I would expect people like you and Gob (and maybe Meade) to be slavishly using the Oxford comma.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

Don't get me started on the Oxford comma. My father, after he came back from the little unpleasantness with our German cousins, was a Cambridge man. (As I was supposed to be until I sabotaged my interview.) I have no time for it. And, if Wikipedia is to believed

Opinions among writers and editors differ on whether to use the serial comma, and usage also differs somewhat between regional varieties of English. Generally (with few exceptions), British English does not make use of this comma, while on the other hand it is common and even mandatory in American English.[6] A majority of American style guides mandate use of the serial comma, including APA style,[7] The Chicago Manual of Style, The MLA Style Manual, Strunk and White's Elements of Style,[8] and the U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual. In contrast, the Associated Press Stylebook advises against it. In Canada, the stylebook published by The Canadian Press advises against it. It is used less often in British English,[9] but a few British style guides require it, notably The Oxford Style Manual.[10]

(My underlining above.)

[BoSoxGal]

Fuck those other guys I got a promotion and a patent bonus today.

[RayThom]

"Another" Cricket Quiz... as compared to the last one.

I got 2/10 correct = 37/250 points. Does anyone want to challenge my awesome cricket acumen?

https://www.britannica.com/quiz/another-cricket-quiz

[Bicycle Bill]

5/10 and 118... and I know as much about cricket as I do about differential calculus or string theory.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

7 for 158. I am ashamed. But it's better than England's 2nd innings performance in the First Test (Ashes)

[ex-khobar Andy]

7 for 161. I was equally ashamed, Meade.

[wesw]

you d think that with all the pakis that you imported you could field a decent team.....

[ex-khobar Andy]

Wes I'm going to assume that you used that term out of ignorance rather than undisguised racism. It's regarded, in much of the world, as being a slur term rather like n****r is in the US. I hope you didn't know that: but now of course you do.

[wesw]

like Yanks?

being offended is a weakness.

I m sorry if those pakis are weak.

[wesw]

if I had really wanted to offend them I would have said towel-heads, but then I might have offended some Sikhs , and I admire the Sikhs....

...never met one paki whom I liked tho...., and I ve met aplenty of them.

but we yanks are assholes, what with all the free speech and stuff.

they lock you up for that shit in the commonwealth these days.

Canada is the worst, I think.

wax my balls or to the human rights commission you go!!!!!

baby blue helmets will soon be in the streets of Toronto....

....then the typhus....

....and the trafficking will follow.

the UN has outlived its usefulness, as has the monarchy.

[rubato]

like Yanks?

being offended is a weakness.

I m sorry if those pakis are weak.

Being offended is an acknowledgement of the intent to offend on the part of another person or an opportunity to communicate a cultural value to someone who does not know it and has offended unintentionally. Pretending not to see it makes you appear otiose and incapable of responding with some social force.

yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

well, that s0unds like s0 much psych0babble t0 me.

speak freely.

think freely.

I may disagree with what y0u say, but I defend y0ur right t say it.

sticks and st0nes may break my b0nes but wrds will never hurt me.

right?

even a child can understand that.

it shuld be taught as a matter 0f c0urse.

...as it 0nce was.

s0 simple.