ganeshran Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:
Ultimate_Game Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Can someone pls explain why Umar Akmal was asking for a helmet... when the match was done and dusted? Was he playing mind games with Loins even though the match was over. honestly no idea what was going on and would love to know what the reasoning was for that tamasha :hmmm:
Desi Cartman Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 He had a bet on losing the game while wearing helmet
Crookbond Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Because his balls are where is head is AND his head is where his balls should be.
indiaregulator Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Cause what if Kulasekara decided to bowl a bouncer and it smashed him in the face? It's cost-benefit analysis. Before Pakistan lost: Costs = potential face injury. Benefit = Win the team a place in final. After Pakistan couldn't win: Costs = Potential face injury benefit = nothing. Hence he put the helmet back on. Anyone with some slight semblance of intelligence could work that out to be fair.
Sandeep99 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Bloody Assho*e needs to be given a lesson of manners... Taufel was pissed off... Maybe he didn't understand English :hysterical:
Tiger80 Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: paise do mofos Mil gaye kya?
Ultimate_Game Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 Cause what if Kulasekara decided to bowl a bouncer and it smashed him in the face? It's cost-benefit analysis. Before Pakistan lost: Costs = potential face injury. Benefit = Win the team a place in final. After Pakistan couldn't win: Costs = Potential face injury benefit = nothing. Hence he put the helmet back on. Anyone with some slight semblance of intelligence could work that out to be fair. But how's the benefit of not wearing a helmet be "win the team a place in the final" :dontknow: Am I missing something here Honestly it was surreal to see that stuff when the match was already over and barely 1 or 2 balls to go.
ravishingravi Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 He was smart. Earlier he took off the helmet knowing fully well that Kula would not risk a bouncer and with the field he will bowl yorker outside off. With the match already won, he felt now Kula had nothing to lose and might try a bouncer. Presence of mind I must say.
Executioner Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 maybe kula said to him: im gonna bowl fast and break your balls...poor lad thought that his eyeballs were targetted
Ultimate_Game Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 He was smart. Earlier he took off the helmet knowing fully well that Kula would not risk a bouncer and with the field he will bowl yorker outside off. With the match already won' date=' he felt now Kula had nothing to lose and might try a bouncer. Presence of mind I must say.[/quote'] But my question is why not play with a helmet throughout? Do the chances to hit a boundary off a fast bowler increase if batting without a helmet? This really has me stumped.
BERGKAMP Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 i would have tried to smash the cheeky fekker in the face with a bouncer when he took his helmet off
BeautifulGame Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 He was smart. Earlier he took off the helmet knowing fully well that Kula would not risk a bouncer and with the field he will bowl yorker outside off. With the match already won' date=' he felt now Kula had nothing to lose and might try a bouncer. Presence of mind I must say.[/quote'] This. It was clear initially Kula will bowl either slower deliveries or yorkers with his field setting.
saneindian Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 SHould Mahela be banned for the final? 110 minutes to bowl 20 overs today The chase started at around 8.35 PM India time and the last ball was bowled at 10.25 pm..a total of around 110 minutes, a full 30 minutes more than the 80 you get to bowl your 20 overs. As it is, Lankans played some dirty tricks to avoid that ban..will the ICC take note and ban him now?
Lord Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 it was a definitely signal of fixing,maybe he was saying guys I did my job
indiaregulator Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 But how's the benefit of not wearing a helmet be "win the team a place in the final" Am I missing something here Honestly it was surreal to see that stuff when the match was already over and barely 1 or 2 balls to go. If you play cricket you would know that wearing a helmet can be a bit of a burden and taking it off means an ever so slight increase in your co-ordination and vision. He thought that the risk of getting smashed in the face was less important than winning his team a place in the final so he took it off in the off-chance that it would improve his hitting. After Pakistan couldn't win he put it on again as the increased potential hitting would mean nothing and he was risking injury nothing essentially.
kubrickian Posted October 4, 2012 Posted October 4, 2012 I dont even know why he took his helmet off in the first place. One of those things that could make sense to only a Paki. Maybe he thought he would take his helmet off in Bollywood style and smash 4 sixes in 4 balls. :hysterical:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now