Adelaide Suburban Cricket Association 2009-10

[Gowser]

One game to go and looking at the ladder what is going to happen with relegation this year. North haven r bottom but their b's r top in section 2 an south road r 2nd to bottom but they also have their b's in section 2. Who will go down?

Depends on what happens in the section 2 finals. Nth Haven will possibly avoid relegation, should they finish bottom a fair chance they won't, by having their b's win section 2. If an A grade side won section 2 then it is possible a side would be relegated but no certainty.

Plenty of variables and not sure we would know until later in the year.

I would imagine no team gets relegated this season as Westminister will be leaving the comp.

[wycbloods]

One game to go and looking at the ladder what is going to happen with relegation this year. North haven r bottom but their b's r top in section 2 an south road r 2nd to bottom but they also have their b's in section 2. Who will go down?

Depends on what happens in the section 2 finals. Nth Haven will possibly avoid relegation, should they finish bottom a fair chance they won't, by having their b's win section 2. If an A grade side won section 2 then it is possible a side would be relegated but no certainty.

Plenty of variables and not sure we would know until later in the year.

I would imagine no team gets relegated this season as Westminister will be leaving the comp.

That also will come into it Gowser. They are a fair chance to be leaving so there will probably just be a team coming into section 1.

[CoverKing]

One game to go and looking at the ladder what is going to happen with relegation this year. North haven r bottom but their b's r top in section 2 an south road r 2nd to bottom but they also have their b's in section 2. Who will go down?

Depends on what happens in the section 2 finals. Nth Haven will possibly avoid relegation, should they finish bottom a fair chance they won't, by having their b's win section 2. If an A grade side won section 2 then it is possible a side would be relegated but no certainty.

Plenty of variables and not sure we would know until later in the year.

I would imagine no team gets relegated this season as Westminister will be leaving the comp.

Agree!!!

ScottyMc could shed some light maybe?

[wycbloods]

With rain forecast for saturday it may mean that only the two coromandel sides can make the finals should we be washed out this saturday and have a 1 day round the following week.

It would be sad to see ICC not able to make it due to the rain .

[The Hunter]

With rain forecast for saturday it may mean that only the two coromandel sides can make the finals should we be washed out this saturday and have a 1 day round the following week.

wouldnt think "a shower or two" will wash us out!

JC turning the ball a mile on sunday....you could hear it fizzing as it went down the wicket...big backspinners Think the turf suited him

[CoverKing]

With rain forecast for saturday it may mean that only the two coromandel sides can make the finals should we be washed out this saturday and have a 1 day round the following week.

wouldnt think "a shower or two" will wash us out!

JC turning the ball a mile on sunday....you could hear it fizzing as it went down the wicket...big backspinners Think the turf suited him

Probably not at Ramblers because JC will bring out the blow dryer again

but without stuck down mattings and a turf deck (WOS hosting NH??) the fight for the finals and spoon could come down a one day game.

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

[bazza1]

The race for the spoon is an interesting one, now with 3 teams in contention, us, South Rd and Plympton. For us to avoid it we must beat Westminster and rely on either Morphys to beat Sth Rd or ICC to beat Plympton.

[wycbloods]

With rain forecast for saturday it may mean that only the two coromandel sides can make the finals should we be washed out this saturday and have a 1 day round the following week.

wouldnt think "a shower or two" will wash us out!

JC turning the ball a mile on sunday....you could hear it fizzing as it went down the wicket...big backspinners Think the turf suited him

It may not wash us out but it is a fair chance, with rain predicted for friday, to have an impact on the amount of overs the game will go for thus making it harder for outright results.

[Amateur Footy]

With rain forecast for saturday it may mean that only the two coromandel sides can make the finals should we be washed out this saturday and have a 1 day round the following week.

wouldnt think "a shower or two" will wash us out!

JC turning the ball a mile on sunday....you could hear it fizzing as it went down the wicket...big backspinners Think the turf suited him

Probably not at Ramblers because JC will bring out the blow dryer again

but without stuck down mattings and a turf deck (WOS hosting NH??) the fight for the finals and spoon could come down a one day game.

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

You're still full of carp CK. I think the one run loss and draw in the first two games, not to mention losing to Coro by 10 runs, would be closer to the mark of missed opportunities. Maybe I'll look back and wish JC could win a toss throughout the season, then we'd have batted in the 40C at WYC instead of your mob.

[wycbloods]

Tight lines today. Hook line sinker.

[wycbloods]

The race for the spoon is an interesting one, now with 3 teams in contention, us, South Rd and Plympton. For us to avoid it we must beat Westminster and rely on either Morphys to beat Sth Rd or ICC to beat Plympton.

Be a good finish to the year for your boys if they get over westminster this week. 3 wins on the trot, i dare say it has been a while since you have done that in section 1.

[bazza1]

Yeah we won the first 3 of the 2007-08 season, and missed the finals by 2 points.

[CoverKing]

With rain forecast for saturday it may mean that only the two coromandel sides can make the finals should we be washed out this saturday and have a 1 day round the following week.

wouldnt think "a shower or two" will wash us out!

JC turning the ball a mile on sunday....you could hear it fizzing as it went down the wicket...big backspinners Think the turf suited him

Probably not at Ramblers because JC will bring out the blow dryer again

but without stuck down mattings and a turf deck (WOS hosting NH??) the fight for the finals and spoon could come down a one day game.

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

You're still full of carp CK. I think the one run loss and draw in the first two games, not to mention losing to Coro by 10 runs, would be closer to the mark of missed opportunities. Maybe I'll look back and wish JC could win a toss throughout the season, then we'd have batted in the 39C at WYC instead of your mob.

EDITED FOR ACCURACY!!!

Good to see your back AF. Been missing for a while!!

What i wrote before was a general question. Not sure how it was full of carp with fighting for survival. It was admitted by your boys when we lost 4 overs at the start of the day that was the plan by your boys.

The above games that you mentioned are also ones that will be looked back on i guess.

But thanks for taking the bait as i have missed you on this forum AF

[Roseboy]

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

I know it's a sucker play, but let's go at it from the other angle... You've had a go at Harvey for showing his "true Sheidow side" of him, now you're taking a side-swipe at your bowlers for not getting the job done cos you didn't have Hopkins? Interesting...

[wycbloods]

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

I know it's a sucker play, but let's go at it from the other angle... You've had a go at Harvey for showing his "true Sheidow side" of him, now you're taking a side-swipe at your bowlers for not getting the job done cos you didn't have Hopkins? Interesting...

Our bowlers didn't get the job done that day RB no doubting that at all and i don't think it is a side swipe at all. We were no certainty to get it done if Hopkins was there anyway but i think it is fair to say it would have increased our chances and AF's temper .

[Roseboy]

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

I know it's a sucker play, but let's go at it from the other angle... You've had a go at Harvey for showing his "true Sheidow side" of him, now you're taking a side-swipe at your bowlers for not getting the job done cos you didn't have Hopkins? Interesting...

Our bowlers didn't get the job done that day RB no doubting that at all and i don't think it is a side swipe at all. We were no certainty to get it done if Hopkins was there anyway but i think it is fair to say it would have increased our chances and AF's temper .

Hmm, not sure it sounded that way.

Yeah, you could have used him for a number of reasons to help with the win, but I digress.

[CoverKing]

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

I know it's a sucker play, but let's go at it from the other angle... You've had a go at Harvey for showing his "true Sheidow side" of him, now you're taking a side-swipe at your bowlers for not getting the job done cos you didn't have Hopkins? Interesting...

You could atleast quote me right Roseboy if you are going to have a dig at me. And that day it definitely was not Harvey that cost a win. He did his job really well although without a wicket, bowled 13 overs for 20 odd.

i mentioned the Hopkins-less attack that you failed to have a go for a win at, because Caleb did bring up the fact in his opinion that our attack is pretty tame without Hopkins, so i thought it was a worthy question at this stage of the year with the possibility of your mob missing the 4 by half a game. I had forgot about the tie and 1 run loss at the start of the year, altho our game was 2 games after which i thought would make you chase the runs even more so

[Roseboy]

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

I know it's a sucker play, but let's go at it from the other angle... You've had a go at Harvey for showing his "true Sheidow side" of him, now you're taking a side-swipe at your bowlers for not getting the job done cos you didn't have Hopkins? Interesting...

You could atleast quote me right Roseboy if you are going to have a dig at me. And that day it definitely was not Harvey that cost a win. He did his job really well although without a wicket, bowled 13 overs for 20 odd.

i mentioned the Hopkins-less attack that you failed to have a go for a win at, because Caleb did bring up the fact in his opinion that our attack is pretty tame without Hopkins, so i thought it was a worthy question at this stage of the year with the possibility of your mob missing the 4 by half a game. I had forgot about the tie and 1 run loss at the start of the year, altho our game was 2 games after which i thought would make you chase the runs even more so

Sorry CK, I understand why my incorrect quote (sorry about that) must have frustrated you, it didn't quite get across the hostility towards a team "mate"...

Harvey did show his true Sheidow form!

I'll avoid that mistake in the future. Again, apologies.

[CoverKing]

Also, if the Ramblers miss out on the 4 by half a game, will they look back on the 71 over day against us (batted 75) where they simply fought for survival instead of playing for a win against our attack that was Hopkins-less??

I know it's a sucker play, but let's go at it from the other angle... You've had a go at Harvey for showing his "true Sheidow side" of him, now you're taking a side-swipe at your bowlers for not getting the job done cos you didn't have Hopkins? Interesting...

You could atleast quote me right Roseboy if you are going to have a dig at me. And that day it definitely was not Harvey that cost a win. He did his job really well although without a wicket, bowled 13 overs for 20 odd.

i mentioned the Hopkins-less attack that you failed to have a go for a win at, because Caleb did bring up the fact in his opinion that our attack is pretty tame without Hopkins, so i thought it was a worthy question at this stage of the year with the possibility of your mob missing the 4 by half a game. I had forgot about the tie and 1 run loss at the start of the year, altho our game was 2 games after which i thought would make you chase the runs even more so

Sorry CK, I understand why my incorrect quote (sorry about that) must have frustrated you, it didn't quite get across the hostility towards a team "mate"...

Harvey did show his true Sheidow form!

I'll avoid that mistake in the future. Again, apologies.

Thats alrite, i just wanted to make sure you realised it was form not side that i wrote.

Still, i dont understand your reaction to my question. I understand AF's reaction because the forum is used to it, but it was a question that IMO was worthy of a response of substance from the ramblers boys on this site.

[Roseboy]

Still, i dont understand your reaction to my question. I understand AF's reaction because the forum is used to it, but it was a question that IMO was worthy of a response of substance from the ramblers boys on this site.

I thought I'd made it pretty clear in the past that the constant referals back to that game in particular plus the snide comments regarding how we played that game etc was getting beyond a joke. I thought we were beyond that, but you manage to bring it up again (rightly or wrongly). So, I figure why not have a shot back.

Let's call a truce eh? You saw the game one way, we saw it another. I'm sure everyone else here is over our collective rubbish. Time to move on.