The Anti-Targ Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Anderson bravely turning a disastrous first innings into a merely dismal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Ended up being a disappointing innings, which is a helluva lot better than it was looking like at lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desire Posted February 13, 2016 Share Posted February 13, 2016 That no ball and Voges today oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 At least something good came from the test match http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/76869995/basin-reserve-cricket-coverage-alerts-fire-service-to-blaze-in-wellington TV coverage of the fire meant the fire service was possibly called earlier than they otherwise would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 On 10/02/2016 at 2:28 PM, Impmk2 said: I don't think that appeals, or for that matter reviews should be able to be asked for on the basis of a replay on the big screen. Play was proceeding and the next ball about to be bowled. Halting play for a review, entirely due to a replay for the crowd, at that stage is kinda ridiculous. And surely in this case the time limit to send things for review should've passed anyway? Or is that only enforced in LBW reviews? When it comes down to it I don't think the big screen, and the bias of what is or isn't shown, and how fast the TV people can get the right angle or hotspot replay up there should be a factor in any match. This is especially true as usually the only wrong decisions shown up there are ones that negatively impact the home team. Absolutely. The entire idea behind DRS appeals is they're time limited so that you have to make a snap decision. And umpires may see the replay as well. How are they meant to avoid second guessing themselves? You want to appeal, appeal before the replay. You don't like the decision, you can ask for a review before the replay. At least there is now some discussion about moving no-ball decisions to the 3rd umpire. A completely obvious thing to do which is probably why the ICC haven't done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Yeah that Voges decision. Ouch. Nothing seemed to go right for NZ in that match, but Australia thoroughly deserved the win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 20 hours ago, ants said: Absolutely. The entire idea behind DRS appeals is they're time limited so that you have to make a snap decision. And umpires may see the replay as well. How are they meant to avoid second guessing themselves? You want to appeal, appeal before the replay. You don't like the decision, you can ask for a review before the replay. At least there is now some discussion about moving no-ball decisions to the 3rd umpire. A completely obvious thing to do which is probably why the ICC haven't done it. How do no balls get called by the 3rd umpire in real time? When the on field umpire calls no ball the particularly perceptive batsmen can actually pick it up in time to play the ball aggressively. If it's 3rd umpire then the call is always after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said: How do no balls get called by the 3rd umpire in real time? When the on field umpire calls no ball the particularly perceptive batsmen can actually pick it up in time to play the ball aggressively. If it's 3rd umpire then the call is always after the fact. What you're describing is the theory. In reality, when was the last time you saw a live no-ball call where the batsman had a realistic chance to react to it? I can't remember the last time personally. So it would make no material difference to the batsmen getting a swing. The batting side still gets to have the ball re-bowled, a free run, and (unless they are run out) immunity from getting out on that ball. Much better to simply hand it to the third umpire. They would be reviewing the ball moments after it's released, and should be feeding back to the umpire within moments of the conclusion of the play on that ball. There should be no delay for most bowlers - maybe a very slight delay for spinners who rush through their deliveries. Having the third umpire review every ball should help consistency with him, and allow the no-ball calls to be more accurate. It would also allow the main umpire's vision to be concentrated on one area - the other end of the pitch. Where the ball pitches, where the batsman and his pads are, what the ball is doing and where it is going. Instead of having to look down and then up. So it should improve decisions by the main umpire. It would also improve the accuracy of the calls since we know no-balls are missed simply from the number of times batsmen have been called back after being given out off one. Usually happens a few times each summer. And of course, from the last test we know the reverse can occur - umpires calling good balls as a no-ball. It should be an improvement for everyone. The only real issue would be where a fielder and the batsman at the bowler's end are obscuring both cameras. Surely we can work around that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 As ants said, unless it's a spinner, batsmen haven't been able to react to a no ball since the rules changes from back foot to front foot no balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exa Inova Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 16 hours ago, Paxter said: Yeah that Voges decision. Ouch. Nothing seemed to go right for NZ in that match, but Australia thoroughly deserved the win. No they didn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Baz doing his thing. What looked to be another horrible first innings having a complete turnaround. Pattinson will be spewing that Baz no ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 41 minutes ago, The Winged Shadow said: Baz doing his thing. What looked to be another horrible first innings having a complete turnaround. Pattinson will be spewing that Baz no ball. Scoring the fastest century in the history of Test cricket isn't a bad way to finish off your international career. ETA - I think he might be going for the fastest double century as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Great stuff from Baz. Kiwis look to be a in a much better position now. It happened so quick! Slog of slogs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 11 hours ago, williamjm said: Scoring the fastest century in the history of Test cricket isn't a bad way to finish off your international career. ETA - I think he might be going for the fastest double century as well. Not too bad at all. Damn, I watched a bit of the start and I thought it was shaping up to be a repeat of the first test so I stopped watching and missed all the fireworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arya_underfoot Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 The pitch has flattened out nicely. Unless something drastic happens here, Australia should pile up a massive lead and give McCullum one last chance to go down swinging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desire Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 Enjoying the Aus V.S NZ test until the commentator said in Surrey or Sussex that in the stand the old folks have a sleep and some don't wake up and its a slight problem is that true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 It's definitely a slight problem for the newly dead, especially if they had plans for the weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Have to hand it to Australia. Whenever NZ have been getting themselves into a decent position in this series, they have struck back. Should be an easy 2-0 victory from here. Nice fighting knocks from KW and Corey though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Well, NZ haven't exactly amassed a winning total, but it's something the NZ bowlers can bowl at and if there are some early break throughs there's some hope for a win. It's certainly a much healthier total than it was looking like just after lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Paxter said: Have to hand it to Australia. Whenever NZ have been getting themselves into a decent position in this series, they have struck back. Should be an easy 2-0 victory from here. Nice fighting knocks from KW and Corey though. I would say in this game it's the opposite. Whenever Aus had had its boot on NZ's throat NZ had squirmed out and made the game look a lot more competitive than Aussie should have allowed. NZ was massively on the ropes in the first innings, then McCullum scores a record breaking century with some lower order support, to get NZ to a respectable 1st innings total. Aussie top 5 gets them into a 1st innings lead with the potential to build a massive lead, NZ manages to keep the lead under 150. Aussie takes NZ to 7 down with only a 76 run lead and then NZ claws its way to a 200 run lead. Aussie are the favourites to win, but really they should have won already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.