Don Bradman Cricket 14 - first impressions thread

[AkramLaraDonald]

I would definitely write a review. I'm just trying to get enough hands on to write a detailed one.

Oke,great.Looking forward to it

 

[BittuGamz]

Not yet. This was just my third match since I got the game ( apart from a practice session ).

Good Work...thanks a lot..can u please show us different cameras in your next videos..

 

[whiteninness]

I didn't see the deviation but I thought you were automatically out if you were hit in line on the full no matter the path of the ball, or has that rule changed since the implementation of hawk eye?

No, that was never the rule but just a common misinterpretation of it. Once the ball hits the pads you assume that the ball follows a straight line along the tangent at impact. That straight line does not have to be straight down the wicket though, particularly if the bowler is bowling the ball at an angle, e.g. around the wicket.

I have drawn two examples here, with exaggerated geometries. In the top example, the ball really would have swung further and hit the stumps, but the umpire must assume the ball follows the tangent path after impact and hence goes down leg. The bowler should be pissed off, but according to the laws this is not out. This has more of an effect with a spinner. A leg spinner could get lucky with a massively ripped leg break hitting the batsman on the full in front of middle. Everyone knows the ball would have turned and missed the stumps, but the umpire cannot guess that, and hence gives it out. You win some and you lose some

In the bottom example there is no swing, think a right arm seamer around the wickets. The ball hits on the full in front of middle, but obviously would have missed the stumps. The umpire projects the tangent line, which here equals the true path the ball would have taken, and it's not out.

The common misconception is that these two decisions should be out, because the batsman was hit on the full in line. The top one I can understand why that perhaps should be the rule, but it does require more guessing from the umpire. In the bottom example, it is obvious why it should be not out.

 

[dhump]

How about I just play well first? :P

Yep.. I will get the copy on Wednesday I guess then lest play online (I will take 8 fielders on leg side).

One question did commentator take names of the player ?? I missed if taken any.

 

[Fissionmailed]

Could be mistaken but I didn't hear any names, have the creators been slacking off with commentary names?

Thanks for the explanation @whiteninness, and the diagrams, diagrams are great! haha. All this time and I had the rule all wrong..

 

[aabretz]

Holy cow nice video thank you and thank you ross and team

 

[imhassan]

The commentators definitely say the names but rarely. I remember laughing when they said Dinda (Indian player).

 

[whiteninness]

Could be mistaken but I didn't hear any names, have the creators been slacking off with commentary names?

A very interesting point which I missed...

 

[MattW]

I got the general impression they want minimal commentary, so you don't get through all the lines in 5 matches.

 

[Rowdoss]

It does look really good and i really dont want to critique it before i've played it but there are two minor things that i've noticed that might need attention in the future.
The first is the funny little business going on in the runout/stumping thing that has been mentioned. The second is the couple of times the keeper "ran away" from an edge that was probably catchable and took it on the half volley, almost with his back to the batsman, instead of moving forward to catch it.
Very minor gripes obviously and as others have said if we are picking things like that it speaks volumes of the quality of the rest of it.
Cant wait.

 

[whiteninness]

It does look really good and i really dont want to critique it before i've played it but there are two minor things that i've noticed that might need attention in the future.
The first is the funny little business going on in the runout/stumping thing that has been mentioned. The second is the couple of times the keeper "ran away" from an edge that was probably catchable and took it on the half volley instead of moving forward to catch it.
Very minor gripes obviously and as others have said if we are picking things like that it peaks volumes of the quality of the rest of it.
Cant wait.

This running away from a catch was seen in a play test video. There was an outfield catch that could have been easily taken chest-high but the fielder backed away and took it at his ankles.

 

[BittuGamz]

One thing that i observed was...there wasn't any reaction from the batsman when the ball hits him...the commentator says though

 

[whiteninness]

One thing that i observed was...there wasn't any reaction from the batsman when the ball hits him...the commentator says though

That's because he's a tough ----!

 

[aabretz]

how about them sounds from the ball hitting the bat to the yes no calls and the bat tapping the ground i love it

 

[Rowdoss]

One thing that i observed was...there wasn't any reaction from the batsman when the ball hits him...the commentator says though

I always remember the snes Super International cricket game when a batsman got sconned in the head, firstly the sound it made!! then that little cut scene of him going down like a sack of s***