India finally hoisted

Craig1 · Guru

India finally hoisted

Magnarc · Guru

A good sign Craig but a long way to go yet. Hope that they can salvage something from debacle of the first two tests.

Xyz · Veteran Member

Australia collapses yet again.
These pitches are a joke in India, very very close to cheating in my opinion
No other country in the world have pitches that turn like this, well none that come to mind.
It maybe good for cricket in India, but, not sure about the rest of the cricket playing countries!!!!!!!!
Ian

yobarr · Guru

Xyz wrote:
Australia collapses yet again.
These pitches are a joke in India, very very close to cheating in my opinion
No other country in the world have pitches that turn like this, well none that come to mind.
It maybe good for cricket in India, but, not sure about the rest of the cricket playing countries!!!!!!!!
Ian

And Australia NEVER prepares pitches that suit the home team? Yeah, right.

I am wanting to be saying that I am being plenty much surprised please that you are being feeling this way please. Cheers

TheHeaths · Guru

During the recent summer here, the former Indian opener, Virinder Sehwag was very quick to label Australia hypocritical about pitches.

His point was that we were quick to label Indian pitches as unfair, but were happy to prepare fast, bouncy wickets to suit our attack.

I have no problems with curators preparing wickets that lean more to the home side, and in India that to me would mean a wicket that was slow and lacked bounce for the first day or so, and then began to turn late day 2 and onwards.

What we have seen, particularly in the last 2 tests are wickets that are unfit for test matches, and especially the last one, with the obvious removal of grass in a straight line outside left handers off stump, close to cheating.

I also note that Mr Sehwag hasnt told us what good and fair wickets we are seeing this series.

Unfortunately this makes a mockery of the test game, and will hasten its demise I expect, and as India holds great sway in the cricket world now, nothing will be done. Such a pity.

Craig1 · Guru

ONLY 76 to get a win, hmmm

Xyz · Veteran Member

This entire series has been a disgrace, even the Indians are struggling, how is this good for cricket.
Don't have problem for home team advantage but this series is laughable when even the home side is struggling
Ian

Craig1 · Guru

Aussies only need 14, can they do it with 9 wkts left

Cupie · Guru

Of course they can.

And for the loss of only one wicket.... The People's Favourite for a duck.

Hoisted on their own petard perhaps.

-- Edited by Cupie on Friday 3rd of March 2023 06:13:43 PM

rgren2 · Guru

A decent captain has helped.

Possum3 · Guru

Hoist with ones own petard. The expression is well-known, and its meaning is fairly clear to most people: it describes someone who has been scuppered by their own schemes, someone who has come a-cropper because of some mischief they intended against others. But what is a petard, and where does it come from?

As with so many phrases in common use, such as the be-all and end-all, salad days, foregone conclusion, the worlds my oyster, the course of true love, dead as a doornail, good riddance, milk of human kindness, one fell swoop, and many others, the phrase appears to have originated in the work of Shakespeare.

And like many other phrases in common use, such as more honoured in the breach than the observance, to the manner born, something is rotten, cruel to be kind, brevity is the soul of wit, in my minds eye, and frailty, thy name is woman, the phrase hoist with ones own petard is derived specifically from one Shakespeare play: Hamlet.

Hamlet uses the phrase in Act 3 Scene 4 of the play, while Hamlet is talking with his mother, Gertrude, and insinuates that he is going to outwit his two schoolfellows, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who have been ordered to take him to England and have him killed:

Theres letters sealed; and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fanged,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work,
For tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon. O, tis most sweet
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

Hamlets assertion that tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his own petard means that it will be good to see the schemer (i.e. Claudius, Hamlets villainous uncle) defeated by his own scheme. Hamlets metaphor is military in flavour: an enginer (similar to engineer) is a maker of engines, including bombs, so the sentiment is that a maker of bombs would end up being blown up by his own bomb.

This is what a petard is: a bomb. The word hoist sometimes causes people problems, and they come away with the erroneous impression that hoist with ones own petard suggests getting tied up in ones own rope (because of the more common meaning of the word hoist, e.g. hoisting a flag up a flagpole).

Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary, in its entry for hoist, does not record the sense of blow up or be blown up: merely raised aloft or placed on high. (Shakespeare uses the verb hoist with this meaning in Antony and Cleopatra: Let him take thee, / And hoist thee up to the shouting Plebeians.) Meanwhile, however, the entry for hoise, a similar if less familiar verb which also means to raise something aloft with a rope or a pulley, contains its own separate sub-entry for hoist with ones own petard, quoting Shakespeares line as the earliest instance of this use. The mental image we are supposed to see, then (in our minds eye), is of someone being blown up high into the air by their own bomb or petard.

But what about that word petard? The OED offers several different senses of this word in its entry for petard, but the earliest and chief meaning is: A small bomb made of a metal or wooden box filled with powder, used to blow in a door, gate, etc., or to make a hole in a wall. That makes perfect sense and seems to explain everything.

Or does it? In the second Quarto printing of Hamlet, the word is spelt not petard but petar. This may be merely evidence of the vagaries of English spelling in the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean period. But it may also have been a bit of cheeky wordplay. The other main sense of petard which the OED defines is: A kind of firework that explodes with a sharp report; a cracker. A small bomb, if you will, that emits a sound and a slight odour. The word petard is derived from the Middle French pet, which means, and theres no polite way of saying this, a fart. As Tom Burnam points out in More Misinformation (the book which I recently reviewed here, and to which I am indebted for pointing out this apparent fart joke in Hamlet), the modern French word for breaking wind is pétarade. Burnam also directs us to an example from just a few years after Hamlet was first staged, in Ben Jonsons Epicoene: He has made a petarde of an old brasse pot, to force your dore.

So, for all that, although hoist with his own petard is used by Hamlet to suggest the idea of being blown up by ones own bomb, Shakespeares original audience might also have appreciated a secondary meaning, about having to endure the unpleasant odours caused by ones own expulsion of intestinal gases. Or, to put it more simply: did Shakespeare invent the sentiment whoever smelt it, dealt it?

Craig1 · Guru

Thanks Possum,

The 4th Test Pitch preparation is under way. 1st step, landmines, then explode them, then a 12 disc plough over the lot, then a feather duster that was used to spank the groundsman after the 1st three tests.

Cupie · Guru

rgren2 wrote:
A decent captain has helped.

Agreed

Cupie · Guru

Possum3 wrote:
Hoist with ones own petard. The expression is well-known, and its meaning is fairly clear to most people: it describes someone who has been scuppered by their own schemes, someone who has come a-cropper because of some mischief they intended against others. But what is a petard, and where does it come from?

As with so many phrases in common use, such as the be-all and end-all, salad days, foregone conclusion, the worlds my oyster, the course of true love, dead as a doornail, good riddance, milk of human kindness, one fell swoop, and many others, the phrase appears to have originated in the work of Shakespeare.

And like many other phrases in common use, such as more honoured in the breach than the observance, to the manner born, something is rotten, cruel to be kind, brevity is the soul of wit, in my minds eye, and frailty, thy name is woman, the phrase hoist with ones own petard is derived specifically from one Shakespeare play: Hamlet.

Hamlet uses the phrase in Act 3 Scene 4 of the play, while Hamlet is talking with his mother, Gertrude, and insinuates that he is going to outwit his two schoolfellows, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, who have been ordered to take him to England and have him killed:

Theres letters sealed; and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fanged,
They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery. Let it work,
For tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard; and t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon. O, tis most sweet
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

Hamlets assertion that tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his own petard means that it will be good to see the schemer (i.e. Claudius, Hamlets villainous uncle) defeated by his own scheme. Hamlets metaphor is military in flavour: an enginer (similar to engineer) is a maker of engines, including bombs, so the sentiment is that a maker of bombs would end up being blown up by his own bomb.

This is what a petard is: a bomb. The word hoist sometimes causes people problems, and they come away with the erroneous impression that hoist with ones own petard suggests getting tied up in ones own rope (because of the more common meaning of the word hoist, e.g. hoisting a flag up a flagpole).

Indeed, the Oxford English Dictionary, in its entry for hoist, does not record the sense of blow up or be blown up: merely raised aloft or placed on high. (Shakespeare uses the verb hoist with this meaning in Antony and Cleopatra: Let him take thee, / And hoist thee up to the shouting Plebeians.) Meanwhile, however, the entry for hoise, a similar if less familiar verb which also means to raise something aloft with a rope or a pulley, contains its own separate sub-entry for hoist with ones own petard, quoting Shakespeares line as the earliest instance of this use. The mental image we are supposed to see, then (in our minds eye), is of someone being blown up high into the air by their own bomb or petard.

But what about that word petard? The OED offers several different senses of this word in its entry for petard, but the earliest and chief meaning is: A small bomb made of a metal or wooden box filled with powder, used to blow in a door, gate, etc., or to make a hole in a wall. That makes perfect sense and seems to explain everything.

Or does it? In the second Quarto printing of Hamlet, the word is spelt not petard but petar. This may be merely evidence of the vagaries of English spelling in the late Elizabethan and early Jacobean period. But it may also have been a bit of cheeky wordplay. The other main sense of petard which the OED defines is: A kind of firework that explodes with a sharp report; a cracker. A small bomb, if you will, that emits a sound and a slight odour. The word petard is derived from the Middle French pet, which means, and theres no polite way of saying this, a fart. As Tom Burnam points out in More Misinformation (the book which I recently reviewed here, and to which I am indebted for pointing out this apparent fart joke in Hamlet), the modern French word for breaking wind is pétarade. Burnam also directs us to an example from just a few years after Hamlet was first staged, in Ben Jonsons Epicoene: He has made a petarde of an old brasse pot, to force your dore.

So, for all that, although hoist with his own petard is used by Hamlet to suggest the idea of being blown up by ones own bomb, Shakespeares original audience might also have appreciated a secondary meaning, about having to endure the unpleasant odours caused by ones own expulsion of intestinal gases. Or, to put it more simply: did Shakespeare invent the sentiment whoever smelt it, dealt it?

Wow!

Thanks for that. Most edifying.

That dissertation would certainly earn the author a maxium 7 mark (in my old Gr12 English standard).

It reminds me of the stuff that my night school teacher would waffle on with ad nauseum, much to his self aggrandizement, exciting the little girls in the class, while I dozed up in the back row, standing to applause when he finally shut up. This sort of behaviour invariably earned me an early mark & scowls of distain from the girls. Maybe I could be excused, being just a brash 26 YO Technical Instructor at the time, only interested in passing, not in learning.

ps. I fully read my (very short) selected Shakespearian Play 'Macbeth' for the first time, in the bath the night before the exam.

I was however, fully versed in the study guide... & had memorised lots of quotations.

The Play was dumped from my study book case in just the last few weeks as I did a once in 20 year clean up. Quite rightly I got a pass mark of 4, which was pretty good as I am a terrible speller.

Oh yes, my self selected 'poem' was The Rubaiyat of Omar Kayan... I can still recall most of just one Quatrain after about 54 years. "A loaf of bread, a jug of wine & thou beside me in the wilderness" etc (which means, that's all I can recall) .... Hang on, bits of another come trickling back... "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on, nor all your piety nor wit can bring it back"... or something like that.

Gaylehere · Guru

Oh Qupie, I remember well the play Macbeth. Studied it for 2 years in grades 9 & 10. The first chapter was the three witches - When shall we three meet again. In thunder, lightning or in rain. When the hurly burlys done When the battles lost and won. That will be ere the set of the sun. Where the place. Upon the heath. There to meet with Macbeth.

Sorry.

Now back to the cricket.

Cupie · Guru

Gaylehere wrote:
Oh Qupie, I remember well the play Macbeth. Studied it for 2 years in grades 9 & 10. The first chapter was the three witches - When shall we three meet again. In thunder, lightning or in rain. When the hurly burlys done When the battles lost and won. That will be ere the set of the sun. Where the place. Upon the heath. There to meet with Macbeth.

Sorry.

Now back to the cricket.

It's amazing what sticks in the recesses of the human brain. It's a wonderous thing.

But then as we age it's also amazing the things that we can't remember.

Craig1 · Guru

A pretty good day 2 for Aussies, well done Cameron Green, and even Usman, despite the flamin sweep

Cupie · Guru

A good total by Au ... Usman certainly led the way but Green showed a bit of why he got the big bucks.

End of day 2 & only 1 innings finished. Might take India 2 days to get a respectful reply. Perhaps we are short a fast bowler. Let's hope that Green steps up again.

Risky to predict the outcome of a match in India but I think a draw is the most likely outcome unless we get another Au collapse ... But then India bat last on a wicket that might just deteriorate on day 5.

Craig1 · Guru

The way it is going, India get 100 in front, we make 77

Xyz · Veteran Member

Dare I say it was too good to be true,
Its pretty obvious, now, that India has prepared a wicket that will produce runs, I was hoping that was not the case, but, very obvious now with India 4 for lots.
I guess they got what they wanted with the first two tests, spinners delight, which is what they are brought up on
It really is enough to turn you off cricket, a disgrace really if you have any understanding of the game itself.
Ian

Plain Truth · Guru

Both teams play on the same pitch.

Xyz · Veteran Member

Yeah, well you have a good understanding of the game hey!

Plain Truth · Guru

Xyz wrote:
Yeah, well you have a good understanding of the game hey!

Do they play on different pitches .

Tony Bev · Guru

It looks like a draw, is on the cards

Some good batting from both sides, on this pitch

yobarr · Guru

Xyz wrote:

Dare I say it was too good to be true,
Its pretty obvious, now, that India has prepared a wicket that will produce runs, I was hoping that was not the case, but, very obvious now with India 4 for lots.
I guess they got what they wanted with the first two tests, spinners delight, which is what they are brought up on
It really is enough to turn you off cricket, a disgrace really if you have any understanding of the game itself.
Ian

"enough to turn you off cricket". Surely you jest. Being a one-eyed "fan" you undoubtedly would try to inform the more gullible amongst us that Australia has NEVER prepared a wicket to more suit the home team? Yeah, right. Grow up. Both teams play on the same wicket. Win some, lose some. If Australia had won you'd no doubt proclaim a "Great game" but when they lose you cry "Not fair". Boo Hoo. Suck it up Walter. Cheers

Xyz · Veteran Member

Seriously, for the cricket tragics like myself, it has nothing to do about the winning, allbeit thats what its all about, but how the game is fought out by two teams.
This series in India has beene more about the pitches than the two sides competing, something a lot of people just don't get.
Peoples ignorance really stands out at times
Ian