Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Test at Lords
250 views
Skip to first unread message
Gilly's Danda
May 18, 2013, 3:22:09 PM5/18/13
to
I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for subpar totals more quickly.
While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
A
While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
A
Mike Holmans
May 18, 2013, 6:27:50 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT), "Gilly's Danda"
<finally...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for subpar totals more quickly.
>
>While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
>
One of the very odd things about this match is how few of the wickets
have fallen to bad shots. There have been some excellent catches and
some superb balls.
The basic problem is the cold. I've been to two other Tests which were
as unpleasant to be at as this one, and both of those were low-scoring
affairs. (Generally speaking, that is. Gooch's 154* at Headingley is
the only really substantial innings I've seen played in the cold, and
no other batsman in that match managed anything of note.)
And if anyone is thinking of musing along the lines of what you should
expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<finally...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for subpar totals more quickly.
>
>While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
>
have fallen to bad shots. There have been some excellent catches and
some superb balls.
The basic problem is the cold. I've been to two other Tests which were
as unpleasant to be at as this one, and both of those were low-scoring
affairs. (Generally speaking, that is. Gooch's 154* at Headingley is
the only really substantial innings I've seen played in the cold, and
no other batsman in that match managed anything of note.)
And if anyone is thinking of musing along the lines of what you should
expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Unknown
May 18, 2013, 7:04:05 PM5/18/13
to
the 20th May 1989, in the waiting room of the maternity ward. It was
FA cup day and day 3 of a test WI I think?
The weather was baking hot. Can't remember any May weather since being
so hot and sunny.
max.it
jzfredricks
May 18, 2013, 9:33:34 PM5/18/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:27:50 AM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> And if anyone is thinking of musing along the lines of what you should
> expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
> over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of Ma
> And if anyone is thinking of musing along the lines of what you should
> expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
> over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
willsutton
May 18, 2013, 9:34:11 PM5/18/13
to
so bloody cold the queues for the hot coffee were longer then the the
bar queues
btw: and this was the Boxing Day Test and in the middle of Summer
Bharat Rao
May 19, 2013, 12:07:20 AM5/19/13
to
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:22:09 PM UTC-4, Gilly's Danda wrote:
>
> While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
>
The bowling has been surprisingly good in spurts, and the batting has been found wanting. I've seen bits of post-lunch play and the Kiwi bowlers in the first innings bowled pretty well on D1 and D2 and England was poor on D2. Didn't see England on D3 morning (too early), and the Kiwi's looked dis spirited during the Root-Trott stand (sounds like some terrible disease of cow's feet). The previous collapses were due to some good bowling (and very nice catching, given how cold it was) -- NZ rushing through England's tail on D2 was certainly due to some very nice swing bowling. But the England D3 EOD collapse was in the face of decent, but not great, bowling. Root just played with a big gaps, to a ball that did cut in a bit, but should have been easily negotiated by him. Bairstow looked clueless, Prior gave catching practice and Trott got quite the spinning ball, but should have negotiated it -- a smaller gate would have done the trick.
>
> While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
>
So in summary, the 3 collapses were caused by very good NZ bowling in I1, didn't see England run through NZ in I2, ordinary England batting in the face of decent bowling in I3.
Bharat
Bob Martin
May 19, 2013, 2:49:32 AM5/19/13
to
in 1115421 20130518 232750 Mike Holmans <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And if anyone is thinking of musing along the lines of what you should
>expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
>over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
"Ne'er cast a clout till May be out".
>And if anyone is thinking of musing along the lines of what you should
>expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
>over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
May weather is notoriously unpredictable in Britain.
I've known 30C and several inches of snow.
Message has been deleted
Andrew Dunford
May 19, 2013, 7:11:27 AM5/19/13
to
"Bob Martin" <bob.m...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:avregc...@mid.individual.net...
Andrew
Bharat Rao
May 19, 2013, 8:23:44 AM5/19/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 12:07:20 AM UTC-4, Bharat Rao wrote:
> So in summary, the 3 collapses were caused by very good NZ bowling in I1, didn't see England run through NZ in I2, ordinary England batting in the face of decent bowling in I3.
Today's pre-lunch collapse was very hostile bowling by Broad, at very poor batting by NZ. Some good NZ bowling restricted the target to below 240 ; not easy but quite gettable. Broad biffed the ball around for a very useful 20 runs, which gave an inkling that today might be his day.
> So in summary, the 3 collapses were caused by very good NZ bowling in I1, didn't see England run through NZ in I2, ordinary England batting in the face of decent bowling in I3.
Both openers fell to very good deliveries, Taylor and Williamson of all people just gifted their wickets away -- Williamson's was particularly inexcusable given the way he had grafted in I1 and that lunch was just 15 mins away. Brownlie was worked over by Anderson who suddenly decided that he needed to get into the fun, and McCullum played a nothing shot, shuffling across, but was desperately unlucky to be given as the ball was marginally umpire's call.
Bharat
jzfredricks
May 19, 2013, 8:26:51 AM5/19/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:23:44 PM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> Today's pre-lunch collapse was very hostile bowling by Broad, at very poor batting by NZ. Some good NZ bowling restricted the target to below 240 ; not easy but quite gettable. Broad biffed the ball around for a very useful 20 runs, which gave an inkling that today might be his day.
I've still got this dreaded feeling that this year there will be lots of poor quality Tests. I'm mainly talking The Ashes. The bowlers seem strong, and the batting weak. Form-wise, that is.
> Today's pre-lunch collapse was very hostile bowling by Broad, at very poor batting by NZ. Some good NZ bowling restricted the target to below 240 ; not easy but quite gettable. Broad biffed the ball around for a very useful 20 runs, which gave an inkling that today might be his day.
Southpaw
May 19, 2013, 11:44:26 AM5/19/13
to
This trip positively freaked my mother out. She couldn't stop repeating until the evening: "But why isn't it melting?" She was convinced we'd covered the whole damn mountain with some white chemical. It took a long time for it to sink in: the snow was melting, but there was so much of it, that 30 degree temperatures all summer wouldn't be enough to melt all of it.
-Samarth.
Southpaw
May 19, 2013, 11:49:45 AM5/19/13
to
Ob cricket: The peak of course, remains snow-covered all year, and very distinctly visible from the pitch at our home ground, above long-on/thirdman.
-Samarth.
Southpaw
May 19, 2013, 12:00:45 PM5/19/13
to
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:22:09 PM UTC-7, Gilly's Danda wrote:
> I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for subpar totals more quickly.
>
>
>
> While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
ICC should investigate the pitch. Test match over in 3 days, with only 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners. (Two of them to that exceedingly rare and thus charmingly colorful commodity: the test match chucker.) How is this a good pitch with something in it for everyone? And 68 all-out? I've seen better batting by skinny kids on the banks of the Adyar river.
> I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for subpar totals more quickly.
>
>
>
> While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
-RSC.
RSX
May 19, 2013, 12:10:34 PM5/19/13
to
similar). But you and I know that ICC investigations are reserved only
for Indian pitches (or when Indians win elections). I am still waiting
for the day when BCCI has some clout in running of ICC. What is the
use of all the money if there is no power.
Gilly's Danda
May 19, 2013, 12:37:49 PM5/19/13
to
This must have been quite some bowling by Broad, though. In the 21st century, there have only been two seven-fers or better at Lords. Broad has taken both, the previous one being almost exactly a year ago against WI. (The last one before that was McGrath's 8-38 in the glorious 1997 Ashes on a rain-affected deck. I miss McGrath.)
A
John Hall
May 19, 2013, 1:33:49 PM5/19/13
to
In article <5ec6fcb0-8f8e-4860...@googlegroups.com>,
> with only 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners. (Two of them to
>that exceedingly rare and thus charmingly colorful commodity: the
>test match chucker.)
In fact there was far more in the pitch for the spinner than is usual at
Lord's - or indeed at most English Test grounds. There were also
bowlers' footmarks on both sides of the pitch, courtesy of NZ's left-arm
bowlers, giving the off-spinner encouragement when bowling to
right-handers. Williamson was getting quite sharp spin in England's
second innings. Martin wasn't very effective, even before he went off
injured, but if Geoff Boycott is to be believed he's a pretty poor
bowler. The general expectation was that Swann would get a lot of
wickets in the second innings. And indeed he might have done had he been
required to bowl.
> How is this a good pitch with something in it for everyone?
It was too slow to be a good pitch, certainly on the first couple of
days when I think most of the wickets to fall were the result of swing
rather than the pitch.
> And 68 all-out? I've seen better batting by skinny kids on the
>banks of the Adyar river.
:)
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Southpaw <arb...@gmail.com> writes:
>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:22:09 PM UTC-7, Gilly's Danda wrote:
>> I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving
>>crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's
>>probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth
>>from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses
>>about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test
>>in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand
>>seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for
>>subpar totals more quickly.
>>
>>
>>
>> While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed,
>>has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some
>>sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in
>>a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English
>>and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test
>>batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying
>>to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to
>>inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at
>>the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless,
>>directionless batting?
>
>ICC should investigate the pitch. Test match over in 3 days,
Three and a half, actually.
>On Saturday, May 18, 2013 12:22:09 PM UTC-7, Gilly's Danda wrote:
>> I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving
>>crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's
>>probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth
>>from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses
>>about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test
>>in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand
>>seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for
>>subpar totals more quickly.
>>
>>
>>
>> While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed,
>>has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some
>>sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in
>>a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English
>>and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test
>>batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying
>>to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to
>>inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at
>>the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless,
>>directionless batting?
>
>ICC should investigate the pitch. Test match over in 3 days,
> with only 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners. (Two of them to
>that exceedingly rare and thus charmingly colorful commodity: the
>test match chucker.)
Lord's - or indeed at most English Test grounds. There were also
bowlers' footmarks on both sides of the pitch, courtesy of NZ's left-arm
bowlers, giving the off-spinner encouragement when bowling to
right-handers. Williamson was getting quite sharp spin in England's
second innings. Martin wasn't very effective, even before he went off
injured, but if Geoff Boycott is to be believed he's a pretty poor
bowler. The general expectation was that Swann would get a lot of
wickets in the second innings. And indeed he might have done had he been
required to bowl.
> How is this a good pitch with something in it for everyone?
days when I think most of the wickets to fall were the result of swing
rather than the pitch.
> And 68 all-out? I've seen better batting by skinny kids on the
>banks of the Adyar river.
--
John Hall
"Sir, I have found you an argument;
but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
Luke Curtis
May 19, 2013, 3:04:39 PM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Southpaw <arb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
A: it was a fair pitch for both sides, it was not a case of win toss,
win match.
B: It was possible to bat, 7 batsman lasted over 100 balls
C: at least there was some excitment, a test lasting 3.5 days is not
ideal but it is 1,000,000% better that 570/4 vs 638 & 70/1 (SL vs BAN
last month) for instance, there is *nothing* worse for test cricket
than dead pitches leading to bowler-flogging high scoring draws
>And 68 all-out? I've seen better batting by skinny kids on the banks of the Adyar river.
There was some bad batting but also some *exceptional* bowling,
Anderson had one ball pitch just outside off-stump and Prior took it
about 4 foot outside leg stump!
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
wrote:
win match.
B: It was possible to bat, 7 batsman lasted over 100 balls
C: at least there was some excitment, a test lasting 3.5 days is not
ideal but it is 1,000,000% better that 570/4 vs 638 & 70/1 (SL vs BAN
last month) for instance, there is *nothing* worse for test cricket
than dead pitches leading to bowler-flogging high scoring draws
>And 68 all-out? I've seen better batting by skinny kids on the banks of the Adyar river.
Anderson had one ball pitch just outside off-stump and Prior took it
about 4 foot outside leg stump!
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
Bharat Rao
May 19, 2013, 4:39:34 PM5/19/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 3:04:39 PM UTC-4, Luke Curtis wrote:
>
> >ICC should investigate the pitch. Test match over in 3 days, with only 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners. (Two of them to that exceedingly rare and thus charmingly colorful commodity: the test match chucker.) How is this a good pitch with something in it for everyone?
>
> A: it was a fair pitch for both sides, it was not a case of win toss,
> win match.
> B: It was possible to bat, 7 batsman lasted over 100 balls
> C: at least there was some excitment, a test lasting 3.5 days is not
> ideal but it is 1,000,000% better that 570/4 vs 638 & 70/1 (SL vs BAN
> last month) for instance, there is *nothing* worse for test cricket
> than dead pitches leading to bowler-flogging high scoring draws
All that you say is true. I expect Samarth fully enjoyed this Test, as did I (though I would have liked NZ to show more gumption in I2). The point is that a bunch of sore losers complained about the pitches Australia played on in India, and all of points A, B and C were completely true about those pitches.
>
> >ICC should investigate the pitch. Test match over in 3 days, with only 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners. (Two of them to that exceedingly rare and thus charmingly colorful commodity: the test match chucker.) How is this a good pitch with something in it for everyone?
>
> A: it was a fair pitch for both sides, it was not a case of win toss,
> win match.
> B: It was possible to bat, 7 batsman lasted over 100 balls
> C: at least there was some excitment, a test lasting 3.5 days is not
> ideal but it is 1,000,000% better that 570/4 vs 638 & 70/1 (SL vs BAN
> last month) for instance, there is *nothing* worse for test cricket
> than dead pitches leading to bowler-flogging high scoring draws
Samarth was just taking the mickey, I imagine...
Bharat
Andrew Dunford
May 19, 2013, 7:50:26 PM5/19/13
to
"Southpaw" <arb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5ec6fcb0-8f8e-4860...@googlegroups.com...
reached at least 75.
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
May 19, 2013, 8:06:18 PM5/19/13
to
"Bharat Rao" <rao.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfd40765-e0d2-4a52...@googlegroups.com...
made look much better than that.
Not sure how McCullum gets to be desperately unlucky. I'd reserve that
description for someone who is wrongly given out, or is run out by a
deflection at the bowler's end.
Andrew
willsutton
May 19, 2013, 9:18:16 PM5/19/13
to
I watched it and the wicket looked ok , the batting was hopeless,
actually in Australian class
Good bowling and with the overcast conditions the Duke moved a bit in
the air but still the batting was not good
jzfredricks
May 19, 2013, 9:22:34 PM5/19/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 11:18:16 AM UTC+10, willsutton wrote:
> Good bowling and with the overcast conditions the Duke moved a bit in
> the air but still the batting was not good
Letting the home team select the ball is too much of an advantage.
> Good bowling and with the overcast conditions the Duke moved a bit in
> the air but still the batting was not good
To make things fair in The Ashes Australia should be allowed to use the Kookaburra, and Eng the Duke.
Andrew Dunford
May 19, 2013, 9:24:09 PM5/19/13
to
"willsutton" <wil...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:avtbuq...@mid.individual.net...
wickets for 54, that description extends to both teams.
Andrew
willsutton
May 19, 2013, 9:34:02 PM5/19/13
to
willsutton
May 19, 2013, 9:38:28 PM5/19/13
to
Test cricket ?
Its strange that India hasnt taking over production of the Cricket ball
jzfredricks
May 19, 2013, 9:58:20 PM5/19/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 11:38:28 AM UTC+10, willsutton wrote:
> It is something that I always wondered over. Why 2 different brands in
> Test cricket ?
Well, I was being facetious. I support the home team supplying the ball, just as I do them supplying the pitches. It adds variety, and culture, to the game.
> It is something that I always wondered over. Why 2 different brands in
> Test cricket ?
> Its strange that India hasnt taking over production of the Cricket ball
willsutton
May 19, 2013, 1:07:35 PM5/19/13
to
>
Geoff Muldoon
May 19, 2013, 11:45:51 PM5/19/13
to
In article <52315ded-4ca9-4934...@googlegroups.com>,
jzfre...@gmail.com says...
India have their own brand ("SG"), and I think it is still in use in
tests. As well as in England, I believe that the Duke ball is used in
tests in the West Indies.
GM
jzfre...@gmail.com says...
tests. As well as in England, I believe that the Duke ball is used in
tests in the West Indies.
GM
John Hall
May 20, 2013, 5:33:49 AM5/20/13
to
In article <avt6r1...@mid.individual.net>,
have reached 50. :)
Andrew Dunford <adun...@artifax.net> writes:
>
>
>"Southpaw" <arb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5ec6fcb0-8f8e-4860...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>
>"Southpaw" <arb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5ec6fcb0-8f8e-4860...@googlegroups.com...
>>
>> ICC should investigate the pitch. Test match over in 3 days, with
>>only 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners. (Two of them to that
>>exceedingly rare and thus charmingly colorful commodity: the
>>test match chucker.) How is this a good pitch with something in it
>>for everyone? And 68 all-out? I've seen better batting by skinny
>>kids on the banks of the Adyar river.
>
>And the outfield as well. If it weren't so slow I reckon NZ would
>have reached at least 75.
>
>Andrew
OTOH if it had remained as slow as it was on day 1, I doubt that they'd
>>only 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners. (Two of them to that
>>exceedingly rare and thus charmingly colorful commodity: the
>>test match chucker.) How is this a good pitch with something in it
>>for everyone? And 68 all-out? I've seen better batting by skinny
>>kids on the banks of the Adyar river.
>
>And the outfield as well. If it weren't so slow I reckon NZ would
>have reached at least 75.
>
>Andrew
have reached 50. :)
Bharat Rao
May 20, 2013, 6:51:34 AM5/20/13
to
On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:06:18 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
> Not sure how McCullum gets to be desperately unlucky. I'd reserve that
> description for someone who is wrongly given out, or is run out by a
> deflection at the bowler's end.
What I meant to say, when I saw it in real time, I thought "no way is that out" -- he was advancing well down the pitch, the ball was swinging in and bouncing, and he was hit just about at or outside off stump. Plenty of doubt in my mind, and I would have given it not out, and I imagine the vast majority of umpires (I"d wager about 80%) would have given it not out under the circumstances.
Davis is one of the elites, so that makes it more likely he would get it right, and he had been at that end all day, and up went his finger. And so it was -- ball just inside off (by a few pixels) and smacking into the top third of leg.
Bharat
> "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
> Not sure how McCullum gets to be desperately unlucky. I'd reserve that
> description for someone who is wrongly given out, or is run out by a
> deflection at the bowler's end.
Davis is one of the elites, so that makes it more likely he would get it right, and he had been at that end all day, and up went his finger. And so it was -- ball just inside off (by a few pixels) and smacking into the top third of leg.
Bharat
Andrew Dunford
May 20, 2013, 7:09:56 PM5/20/13
to
news:b01839bf-1cea-4663...@googlegroups.com...
This is an interesting commentary on changes in umpire decision-making since
DRS was introduced, most notably lbw. Or perhaps since Hawkeye became
widely available.
It seems that umpires are more likely to give batsmen out lbw today in what
in the past would have been deemed marginal circumstances e.g. playing well
forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
When Davis first umpired Tests he was a keen not-outer. There was one lbw
at Hamilton with Styris bowling to Pollock that would just about have gone
under middle stump, but Davis wasn't interested.
Andrew
DRS was introduced, most notably lbw. Or perhaps since Hawkeye became
widely available.
It seems that umpires are more likely to give batsmen out lbw today in what
in the past would have been deemed marginal circumstances e.g. playing well
forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
When Davis first umpired Tests he was a keen not-outer. There was one lbw
at Hamilton with Styris bowling to Pollock that would just about have gone
under middle stump, but Davis wasn't interested.
Andrew
Bob Dubery
May 20, 2013, 11:37:55 PM5/20/13
to
On May 19, 12:27 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> One of the very odd things about this match is how few of the wickets
> have fallen to bad shots. There have been some excellent catches and
> some superb balls.
>
> The basic problem is the cold. I've been to two other Tests which were
> as unpleasant to be at as this one, and both of those were low-scoring
> affairs. (Generally speaking, that is. Gooch's 154* at Headingley is
> the only really substantial innings I've seen played in the cold, and
> no other batsman in that match managed anything of note.)
I did notice the sweaters. Interesting then that, as you say, so many
good catches were taken. I'd expect stiff fingers in chilly weather.
> One of the very odd things about this match is how few of the wickets
> have fallen to bad shots. There have been some excellent catches and
> some superb balls.
>
> The basic problem is the cold. I've been to two other Tests which were
> as unpleasant to be at as this one, and both of those were low-scoring
> affairs. (Generally speaking, that is. Gooch's 154* at Headingley is
> the only really substantial innings I've seen played in the cold, and
> no other batsman in that match managed anything of note.)
I did notice the sweaters. Interesting then that, as you say, so many
good catches were taken. I'd expect stiff fingers in chilly weather.
jzfredricks
May 21, 2013, 1:26:11 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:09:56 AM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
> DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
You and I have quite different definitions of 'always'.
> forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
> DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
Andrew Dunford
May 21, 2013, 2:11:31 AM5/21/13
to
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ecf22b88-13be-468f...@googlegroups.com...
intended to be. Replace with "there is a good chance" if you like.
Worth mentioning at the same time that DRS once again showed the umpires to
be doing a very good job, as is frequently the case. Only one decision
overturned, and no batsman given out incorrectly. A reasonable effort given
that umpiring standards have never been lower, a 'fact' we will no doubt be
reminded of when a mistake is eventually made.
Andrew
jzfredricks
May 21, 2013, 2:42:13 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:11:31 PM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> That's because you are taking what I wrote literally, when it was not
> intended to be. Replace with "there is a good chance" if you like.
done :)
> That's because you are taking what I wrote literally, when it was not
> intended to be. Replace with "there is a good chance" if you like.
> Worth mentioning at the same time that DRS once again showed the umpires to
> be doing a very good job, as is frequently the case. Only one decision
> overturned, and no batsman given out incorrectly. A reasonable effort given
> that umpiring standards have never been lower, a 'fact' we will no doubt be
> reminded of when a mistake is eventually made.
I also think DRS usage is improving. People often go on about frivolous referrals and what a time waster it is, but I see no evidence of that. Perhaps early on, when they were learning the skill, but not so much now.
This is of course another reason for India to join the 21st C.
Mike Holmans
May 21, 2013, 3:46:55 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:09:56 +1200, "Andrew Dunford"
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>This is an interesting commentary on changes in umpire decision-making since
>DRS was introduced, most notably lbw. Or perhaps since Hawkeye became
>widely available.
>
>It seems that umpires are more likely to give batsmen out lbw today in what
>in the past would have been deemed marginal circumstances e.g. playing well
>forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
>DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
In my observation, umpires have been giving batsmen out in more
marginal circumstances since Hawkeye became well-established and
umpires started routinely reviewing their decisions with the benefit
of its output, both in the privacy of their hotel rooms and in review
sessions with the ICC umpiring manager.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<adun...@artifax.net> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>This is an interesting commentary on changes in umpire decision-making since
>DRS was introduced, most notably lbw. Or perhaps since Hawkeye became
>widely available.
>
>It seems that umpires are more likely to give batsmen out lbw today in what
>in the past would have been deemed marginal circumstances e.g. playing well
>forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
>DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
marginal circumstances since Hawkeye became well-established and
umpires started routinely reviewing their decisions with the benefit
of its output, both in the privacy of their hotel rooms and in review
sessions with the ICC umpiring manager.
Cheers,
Mike
--
RSX
May 21, 2013, 10:07:29 AM5/21/13
to
On May 21, 4:09 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "Bharat Rao" <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
going to hit the stumps and have corrected their margin of error. I
don't think they are relying on Hawkeye to back them up. But it is
annoying to see even clear run outs being referred to the third
umpire.
> "Bharat Rao" <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b01839bf-1cea-4663...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:06:18 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> >> "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
>
> >> Not sure how McCullum gets to be desperately unlucky. I'd reserve that
> >> description for someone who is wrongly given out, or is run out by a
> >> deflection at the bowler's end.
>
> > What I meant to say, when I saw it in real time, I thought "no way is that
> > out" -- he was advancing well down the pitch, the ball was swinging in and
> > bouncing, and he was hit just about at or outside off stump. Plenty of
> > doubt in my mind, and I would have given it not out, and I imagine the
> > vast majority of umpires (I"d wager about 80%) would have given it not out
> > under the circumstances.
>
> > Davis is one of the elites, so that makes it more likely he would get it
> > right, and he had been at that end all day, and up went his finger. And
> > so it was -- ball just inside off (by a few pixels) and smacking into the
> > top third of leg.
>
> This is an interesting commentary on changes in umpire decision-making since
> DRS was introduced, most notably lbw. Or perhaps since Hawkeye became
> widely available.
>
> It seems that umpires are more likely to give batsmen out lbw today in what
> in the past would have been deemed marginal circumstances e.g. playing well
> forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
> DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
IMO, umpires after watching hawkeye replays know (or think) what is
> news:b01839bf-1cea-4663...@googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:06:18 PM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> >> "Bharat Rao" wrote in message
>
> >> Not sure how McCullum gets to be desperately unlucky. I'd reserve that
> >> description for someone who is wrongly given out, or is run out by a
> >> deflection at the bowler's end.
>
> > What I meant to say, when I saw it in real time, I thought "no way is that
> > out" -- he was advancing well down the pitch, the ball was swinging in and
> > bouncing, and he was hit just about at or outside off stump. Plenty of
> > doubt in my mind, and I would have given it not out, and I imagine the
> > vast majority of umpires (I"d wager about 80%) would have given it not out
> > under the circumstances.
>
> > Davis is one of the elites, so that makes it more likely he would get it
> > right, and he had been at that end all day, and up went his finger. And
> > so it was -- ball just inside off (by a few pixels) and smacking into the
> > top third of leg.
>
> This is an interesting commentary on changes in umpire decision-making since
> DRS was introduced, most notably lbw. Or perhaps since Hawkeye became
> widely available.
>
> It seems that umpires are more likely to give batsmen out lbw today in what
> in the past would have been deemed marginal circumstances e.g. playing well
> forward, because Hawkeye will often back them up. And of course when the
> DRS is in play, an incorrect decision can always be overturned.
going to hit the stumps and have corrected their margin of error. I
don't think they are relying on Hawkeye to back them up. But it is
annoying to see even clear run outs being referred to the third
umpire.
Southpaw
May 21, 2013, 11:03:53 AM5/21/13
to
-Samarth.
mike
May 21, 2013, 2:18:22 PM5/21/13
to
On May 20, 2:18 am, willsutton <will...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 9:50 AM, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> > "Southpaw" <arbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On 20/05/2013 9:50 AM, Andrew Dunford wrote:
>
> >news:5ec6fcb0-8f8e-4860...@googlegroups.com...
> >> ICC should investigate the pitch. Test match over in 3 days, with only
> >> 3 of the 40 wickets falling to spinners.
>
> > And the outfield as well. If it weren't so slow I reckon NZ would have
> > reached at least 75.
>
> > Andrew
>
> ok, you made me chuckle Dunford
>
> I watched it and the wicket looked ok , the batting was hopeless,
> actually in Australian class
>
> Good bowling and with the overcast conditions the Duke moved a bit in
> the air but still the batting was not good
there was nothing lethal in the pitch, but i saw a
> > reached at least 75.
>
> > Andrew
>
> ok, you made me chuckle Dunford
>
> I watched it and the wicket looked ok , the batting was hopeless,
> actually in Australian class
>
> Good bowling and with the overcast conditions the Duke moved a bit in
> the air but still the batting was not good
few roots in the outfield ;)
Englands supposed batting superiority over oz batters
doesnt look so strong. Pattinson and the great white starc
will be hoping for similar bowling conditions.
mike
Luke Curtis
May 21, 2013, 5:30:20 PM5/21/13
to
with the bat more and not risk just chucking a pad at the ball, and
will make a higher proportion of games results.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike
Andrew Dunford
May 21, 2013, 6:07:04 PM5/21/13
to
"RSX" <rgop...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:7a6de22b-7cb4-4b9d...@fq2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...
televised matches are now actively discouraged from getting into the correct
(side-on) position from which to judge a run out, so to avoid their body
obscuring the view of the fixed side-on cameras used for judging line calls.
However there are many direct hit run outs which still can be judged easily
but are not.
In the cases (ok yes, I am referring to the IPL) it's difficult to escape
the conclusion that referrals are encouraged in order to increase exposure
for a sponsor's name on the big screen at the ground.
Andrew
willsutton
May 21, 2013, 8:33:53 PM5/21/13
to
something said during one of the broadcasts about India considering
using the Duke instead of the Kookabuura
btw: I wont say what I was going to say .. I will behave
Luke Curtis
May 22, 2013, 1:41:55 PM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 11:18:22 -0700 (PDT), mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
The bowlers will no doubt want and enjoy the conditions if they get
them but the batters will not, this will be a weaker batting lineup
than got rolled over 6 consecutive times in the Ashes last time in
much better batting conditions for less than 310 and one of those
times for less than 100.
I look at the Aus team and while they look capable of getting 20
wickets they look totally incapable of setting any kind of target for
the bowlers to bowl at.
>
>mike
wrote:
them but the batters will not, this will be a weaker batting lineup
than got rolled over 6 consecutive times in the Ashes last time in
much better batting conditions for less than 310 and one of those
times for less than 100.
I look at the Aus team and while they look capable of getting 20
wickets they look totally incapable of setting any kind of target for
the bowlers to bowl at.
>
>mike
arahim
May 23, 2013, 5:34:31 PM5/23/13
to
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:27:50 PM UTC-7, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT), "Gilly's Danda"
>
> <finally...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
>
> over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
>
British freezing amidst global warming?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> --
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 12:22:09 -0700 (PDT), "Gilly's Danda"
>
> <finally...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
>
> >I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for subpar totals more quickly.
>
> >
>
> >While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> >I know that there's some crap hit-and-giggle scandal involving crap players in a useless competition - my thinking its that it's probably designed to push up ratings by eliminating Sreesanth from the game and give CNN-IBN some excuse to hurl abuses about Cricket again. RSC may also have noted that there's a Test in progress at Lords, during which England and New Zealand seem to be competing to see whose batsmen can get out for subpar totals more quickly.
>
> >
>
> >While obviously it's nice to see the bowlers not getting flayed, has anyone who's managed to watch the game come to some sort of conclusion as to the reason for three collapsed innings in a row? Are the conditions just of the overcast sort that English and Kiwi bowlers seem to be able to exploit and that Test batsmen no longer seem able to negotiate? Is Cook's crew trying to play with Australian minds/Powerpoint projections by trying to inculcate the sense that the English batsmen aren't much good at the moment? Or has it just been old-fashioned useless, directionless batting?
>
> >
>
>
>
> One of the very odd things about this match is how few of the wickets
>
> have fallen to bad shots. There have been some excellent catches and
>
> some superb balls.
>
>
>
> The basic problem is the cold. I've been to two other Tests which were
>
> as unpleasant to be at as this one, and both of those were low-scoring
>
> affairs. (Generally speaking, that is. Gooch's 154* at Headingley is
>
> the only really substantial innings I've seen played in the cold, and
>
> no other batsman in that match managed anything of note.)
>
>
>
> And if anyone is thinking of musing along the lines of what you should
>
> have fallen to bad shots. There have been some excellent catches and
>
> some superb balls.
>
>
>
> The basic problem is the cold. I've been to two other Tests which were
>
> as unpleasant to be at as this one, and both of those were low-scoring
>
> affairs. (Generally speaking, that is. Gooch's 154* at Headingley is
>
> the only really substantial innings I've seen played in the cold, and
>
> no other batsman in that match managed anything of note.)
>
>
>
>
> expect of May weather in England, I'd say that after living here for
>
> over 50 years, I'd expect considerably warmer weather than this.
>
British freezing amidst global warming?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
> --
jzfredricks
May 23, 2013, 6:00:04 PM5/23/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 7:34:31 AM UTC+10, arahim wrote:
> British freezing amidst global warming?
The diehard deniers cling onto the phrase "global warming", when the rest of the community now understands that "climate change" is a much better term to describe it.
> British freezing amidst global warming?
arahim
May 23, 2013, 6:38:21 PM5/23/13
to
Unknown
May 23, 2013, 6:50:16 PM5/23/13
to
enough to experience the full ticket.
max.it
arahim
May 24, 2013, 5:39:31 AM5/24/13
to
0 new messages