Posted by Mitchell Starc is injured, James Faulkner is injured, Nathan Coulter-Nile is injured, Pat Cummins is injured, James Pattinson is injured and Josh Hazlewood is being rested in case he gets injured. The way things are going, he’ll probably end up missing the next Test with bedsores.
Australia coach Darren Lehmann has said these absences provide an opportunity for someone else to make a name for themselves – a Mick Lewis kind of name, presumably.
In the second one-day international against South Africa, Australia opened the bowling with Chris “Who?” Tremain and Joe “No, Seriously – Who?” Mennie.
Tremain fared the better. Not only did he keep his economy rate down to 7.80 runs an over, he also took a wicket. Cricinfo commentary records it as “heaved hard and violently out to deep midwicket”.
Christ remain. Haha.
Good spot!
Wonderful name for anagrams. Pick your favourite here:
http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=chris+tremain&t=1000&a=n
I’ll go with RACISM HINTER
ARSENIC MIRTH for me.
MARINER’S ITCH
Less successful spinoff of the Fisherman’s Friend.
Those two only got a game because they dropped/rested/rotated Scott “My List A Average is 34” Boland and Daniel “Don’t look because my average is much worse than Scott’s” Worrall after de Kock treated them with the respect they deserved in the first game.
Durham relegated!
This is ridiculous.
http://www.ecb.co.uk/news/articles/ecb-and-durham-agree-financial-package
Somewhat harsh, imo.
In the same way that Donald Trump is somewhat stupid.
All sports seem to do this, punish teams that are in financial difficulty. I don’t know why.
That is, I don’t know what the reason is. I can’t be critical of it as a policy, because I don’t know what they are trying to achieve. There must be a reason behind it. Rugby League does the same, and generally that is quite a well-run game. It seems completely counter-intuitive, adding further financial stress to an already financially stressed organisation.
Any ideas? Is it a deterrent?
I’m with you on this one, Bert, baffled.
In theory the tough line from the centre avoids the risk (or accusation) of moral hazard.
In practice it rubs a whole load of KC’s South Cheshire/North Staffordshire salt into a gaping wound.
Especially in this case I find the draconian approach disproportionate and inappropriate. Durham primarily got into financial trouble by doing the ECB’s bidding and then suffering when the ECB moved the goalposts. The ECB then bails out Durham but at the same time punishes them for a minimum of two seasons with relegation and points deductions.
It’s not quite ridiculous to me – I can see the arguments both ways- but in the circumstances this outcome seems extremely harsh and possibly counter-productive.
Mid-Cheshire doesn’t have much. There’s no need to deny it its salt.
I’m sure Durham supporters will love next season. Hamstrung in every competition and half the team gone.
I’d have promoted Kent and relegated Hampshire as well. They didn’t deserve to stay up.
The comments on the Guardian article are worth a read. There’s much slamming of the ECB, and a nice smattering of Giles Clarke insulting. This comment summed it up best, I feel:
.