Dein erstes Forum » had spoken with Simpso

Have non-contests ever been as hotly contested? Its fair to say that when the alterations to the playing conditions of the 2016 County Championship were announced, there were a good number of conflicting opinions, and words, flying about. Visiting captains were to be given the option of foregoing the toss if they wanted to bowl first, the idea being to negate home reliance on green seaming wickets. Toss uncontested duly made its appearance on scorecards from Headingley to Hove.After one season - and one season remains a small sample size, so caution is advised - it would appear that the tweaked regulations have indeed promoted tweak, with spinners brought to the fore. Its certainly been enough of a success - or perhaps not too much of a failure - to justify continuing the experiment.Why stop at county cricket, though? Is there any reason why it should not be extended to Test cricket? Indeed, at first glance, some variant of toss concession - whether automatic permission for the visitors to bowl first, bat first, or choose either option - might appear to redress one of the deepest on-field imbalances in the international game: home advantage.The difficulty of winning away from home has been highlighted all the more by Bangladeshs 1-1 draw with England, which has ensured that that country will not be viewed as a near-certain-win destination for touring teams. Taking the example of England a little further, results show that they have now failed to gain series victories on their most recent visits to all bar two of the Test nations: 1-1 in the West Indies, 2015; 0-5 in Australia, 2013-14; 0-0 in New Zealand, 2012-13; 1-1 in Sri Lanka, 2011-12; 0-2 in Pakistan, 2005-6 (plus 0-2 on UAE soil in 2015); 0-0 in Zimbabwe, 1996.Indeed, the only teams not on that list are South Africa (2-1 in 2015-16) and India (2-1 in 2012-13). Few observers would expect India to still be on it by the end of the year - and that is at least partly down to the expectation that the pitches for the series starting this week will assist the home team. Less than a year ago, South Africa - then No. 1 in the rankings - were spun out for 3-0, with the Nagpur pitch, in particular, incurring particular criticism.Touring has never been easy. In all the decades of Test cricket, there has only ever been one decade when away wins matched the number of away losses - the 1890s, when all of 32 Tests were played. Since the 1930s, there has been a near-constant decline in the away win-loss ratio, with each decade proving worse for touring teams than its predecessor - bar the 2000s, which recorded a slight upturn, mainly thanks to the mighty Australians. The ratio has now slumped to 0.571; if the same downward trajectory continues, it will not be long before it hits 0.5, meaning that teams will be losing twice as many games as they win. It should be noted in passing, incidentally, that the percentage of away wins has increased over the decades; the problem is that that of away losses has too - it is the draw that is becoming rarer.Whatever the reasons are for this long-term decline - two of the most frequently vaunted factors being the influence of T20 on technique, and reduced acclimatisation on shorter tours - there is a temptation to twiddle with the parameters of the game. Michael Holding, in a column for Wisden India, called for the toss to be done away with entirely in Test cricket, with the aim of evening up the contests between bat and ball, a call that Ricky Ponting has also made - under his scheme, the visiting captain would always win the toss.The aim of maintaining a contest between bat and ball is more than laudable - it is a fundamental principle of the game - but it is far from certain that removing the toss would do anything to further that aim. England team analyst Nathan Leamon made the point in a Nightwatchman essay that since 1990 winning the toss has only translated into a very slight advantage (currently 401 wins against 388 losses); captains often fail, arguably, to make proper use of winning the toss, so handing it to them automatically may be of less help than expected. Furthermore, if visiting players are weak players of seam or spin or swing bowling, their deficiencies in that department will be likely to be exposed regardless of when they choose to bat.Another potential negative of the arrangement was glimpsed during the early part of the 2016 Championship season: the high number of drawn matches, likely due at least in part to the batting-friendly surfaces promoted by the altered regulations. The last thing that Test cricket needs is for its pitches to suffer the homogenisation creeping into ODIs. Cricket as a spectacle is much more engrossing when both bowlers and batsmen are in the game. Leamon also observed that there was a chance that groundsmen would go to the other extreme, providing surfaces that overwhelmingly favoured the home side, regardless of whether they batted or bowled first, thus rendering the toss near-irrelevant.Not only would there be no guarantees, therefore, that such a policy would redress the imbalance, but the game itself would also lose something. Playing away is supposed to be hard. Indeed, a large part of what makes Test cricket the ultimate challenge is the necessity of coping with conditions that are not merely alien, but that strongly favour the home side. Theres nothing inherently untoward or underhanded about a team preparing a surface that plays to their strengths; the variation encountered around the world is one of crickets great assets.Doing away with the toss would also risk, somewhat counter-intuitively, reducing the satisfaction for supporters: Everest would be that little bit lower. Overcoming a deck that has been tailored, if not outright stacked, to the home sides strengths emphasises the achievement of the fish out of water - and this is only magnified if the team also lost the toss. Englands 2-1 triumph over India in 2012-13 was secured despite the visitors losing the toss in each of the non-drawn matches. Two years later, when India visited Lords, they not only had to deal with one of the greenest tops seen there of late, but losing the toss also condemned them to batting first on it. Their subsequent victory was a great moment for the Away Team collective. The ICC retains the right to penalise a pitch if it deems it poor, with the overriding objective being to provide a balanced contest between bat and ball over the course of the match, allowing all the individual skills of the game to be demonstrated by the players at various stages of the match. This is entirely appropriate, and the ICC should continue to perform such a role; both Nagpur in 2015 and Trent Bridge in 2014 received poor ratings under this system. In bilateral series, that is about as far as the ICC should go. It should resist any temptation to meddle with the toss.If the toss must be modified, then may it be this modification: allow the team that loses the toss to make one alteration to their side before play begins. Thus the team winning the toss would continue to receive the primary advantage, as it should do, while the team losing the toss would be granted the consolatory measure of being able to adapt their team in response. For example, a team might initially name a side with three specialist bowlers and an allrounder; if, however, they lost the toss and were condemned to bat last, they could opt to replace the allrounder with a specialist batsman, with half an eye on a draw-saving rearguard effort. Alternatively, they might choose a highly aggressive strategy, and replace the allrounder with a specialist bowler, with the intent of nullifying the imbalance through all-out attack by their bowlers.Such an arrangement would allow home advantage to be preserved, while offering teams a touch more leeway in coping with that advantage. Indeed, the teams that will most benefit will be those that learn to prepare conditions that provide just enough assistance for their skills to shine more brightly than those of their opponents. It would also add to, rather than subtract from, the opportunity for variations in the game.The main driver behind the Championship change was player development, not spectacle improvement. Like it or not, in this day and age, much of the raison detre of Championship cricket is to provide a training ground for players before international duty. Test cricket, by contrast, is not meant to be a place to learn ones trade, nor to develop players for a higher level of cricket. In short, the reasons that make dropping the toss a provisional success in the Championship do not hold for the Test game, wherein great cricketers, and great cricket teams, find a way to win, despite every outrageous fortune slung against them - and that includes the toss. Ultra Boost Kaufen Schweiz . The defence is doing its part, too. Drew Brees threw a pair of touchdown passes in the first half and the guys on the other side made sure that was enough, sending the Saints to a 17-13 victory over the Atlanta Falcons on Thursday night. Nmd Schweiz Kaufen . -- Jakob Silfverberg is making himself right at home with the Anaheim Ducks, scoring four goals in his first four games. http://www.nmdschweizkaufen.ch/gazelle-outlet.html . John Tavares, Thomas Vanek and Kyle Okposo were also being counted on to slow down sizzling Rangers forward Rick Nash. That plan didnt go so well early. Nmd Schuhe Online . After a first half in which he thought "the lid was on the basket," the Toronto Raptors coach watched his squad mount a second half surge to defeat the Cleveland Cavaliers 98-91. Adidas Eqt Schweiz . On Saturday night, the normally free throw-challenged centre did just that. Howard scored 18 of his 25 points in the fourth quarter, including 13 of 19 free throws in a 2 1/2-minute stretch, and the Houston Rockets beat the Denver Nuggets 122-111.LAS VEGAS -- O.J. Simpson will return next week to the Las Vegas courthouse where he was convicted of leading an armed sports memorabilia heist to ask a judge for a new trial on the grounds that his lawyer botched his case. Simpson will take the witness stand to testify that the Florida lawyer who collected nearly $700,000 is to blame for his armed robbery and kidnapping conviction in 2008 and his failed appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court in 2010. Simpsons testimony in open court will offer a first look at the aging 65-year-old former football star since he was handcuffed and sent to prison more than four years ago. Simpson didnt testify at his Las Vegas trial or in the historic case that led to his 1995 acquittal in the slayings of his ex-wife and her friend in Los Angeles. Instead of an expensive suit and tie, Simpson will be dressed in blue Nevada Department of Corrections clothing -- greyer, heavier and limping a little more from long-ago knee injuries, friends say. He is now Nevada inmate No. 1027820, a far cry from his playing days when Simpson wore jersey No. 32, won the Heisman Trophy, earned the nickname "The Juice" in the NFL and gained induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Simpson is scheduled to be in Clark County District Court beginning Monday for the entire five-day hearing. He could testify Wednesday before a judge who has agreed to hear 19 separate points, mostly claiming that lawyer Yale Galanter provided such poor representation that Simpson deserves a new trial. Simpson is serving a nine-to-33-year sentence that makes him first eligible for parole at age 70. If he wins a new trial, prosecutors would have to decide whether to retry him for an incident that happened in September 2007 or offer a plea deal sparing the time and expense of another trial. In a sworn statement outlining his upcoming testimony, Simpson said he told Galanter in advance that he planned to confront two collectibles dealers in Las Vegas and retrieve what he expected would be family photos, heirlooms and personal sports mementoes that he believed had been stolen from him after his "trial of the century" in Los Angeles. "I fully disclosed my plan to Yale Galanter, and he advised me that I was within my legal rights," he said. Simpson said the two even had dinner the night before in Las Vegas, and Galanter told him the plan was OK as long as he didnt trespass on private property or use physical force. Simpson claims that at trial, Galanter told him he didnt need to testify because prosecutors failed to prove their case, and didnt tell him about a plea offer by prosecutors that would have gotten him a minimum of two years in prison. "Had I understood that there was an actual chance of conviction, I would have accepted such an offer," Simpson said. Galanter, who is expected to testify Friday, declined to comment ahead of his appearance. Throwing trial attorneys under the bus on appeals is a common legal tactic for people convicted of crimes -- but rarely successful. The burden of proof in a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus is on the defendant to convince a judge -- not a jury -- that the triial was tainted and new evidence might yield acquittal.dddddddddddd. Its not yet clear whether Clark County District Court Judge Linda Marie Bell will make an immediate ruling or issue a written decision later. Bell didnt handle the trial, and both prosecutors have retired. Most of the colorful cast of characters involved in Simpsons first trial wont be involved in next weeks hearing. Attorneys put the number of expected witnesses at 16 -- including lawyers, experts, Simpson friends and his 44-year-old daughter, Arnelle. Some legal observers think Simpson has a chance at getting a new trial. "If Mr. Simpson can establish that the strategy of the defence was motivated by his lawyers self-interest, and that it compromised Mr. Simpsons trial rights, he could overcome the defendants burden and establish the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to get him a new trial," said Las Vegas attorney Michael Cristalli. The veteran lawyer handled the successful appeal, retrial and 2004 acquittal of a former stripper in the 1998 death of wealthy casino executive Ted Binion. Simpsons 94-page petition for a new trial exempts trial co-counsel Gabriel Grasso from the conflict-of-interest question. It says Grasso wasnt made aware of Galanters pre-incident advice, wasnt privy to private strategy discussions between Galanter and Simpson, and was rebuked when he tried to advise Simpson without Galanters approval. Former District Attorney David Roger is due to testify. In an interview, he recalled discussing a possible plea with Galanter during trial, but said discussions didnt yield "negotiations in the legal sense." Galanter said Simpson might be willing to serve 24 months in prison, Roger recalled. Prosecutors countered with 30 months. Galanter later said Simpson wanted no more than 12 months. Roger said he thought Galanter had spoken with Simpson. "Thats where the conversation ended," the former prosecutor said. H. Leon Simon, the chief deputy district attorney now handling the case, said Simpson isnt owed a new trial. Evidence was overwhelming, he said. Hotel security video showed Simpson and five other men arriving at the Palace Station casino-hotel with middleman Thomas Riccio, and leaving with boxes of items. Jurors heard audio recordings of Simpson and others talking about the plan ahead of time and of the five-minute confrontation involving nine men crammed around a big bed in a small room. Two of the men said they had guns. Simpson trial co-defendant Clarence "C.J." Stewart served more than two years of a 7 1/2-to-27 year prison sentence before the state Supreme Court overturned his conviction. The justices ruled Simpsons fame tainted the Las Vegas proceedings and Stewart should have been tried separately. Stewart took a plea deal to avoid a retrial and was convicted of felony robbery and conspiracy but set free. "As far as Simpson is concerned, I wish him luck," said Stewart, now 59 and driving limousine in New Orleans. "He needs to tell the truth about Yale Galanter. Yale only represented him to protect himself, to make sure his name didnt come up." ' ' '