England tour of South Africa 09/10

[stefan]

Smith got very lucky today. No doudt harper/sabc screwed up. I could hear the nick but as with all these nick behinds unless you have hotspot its very hard to be sure.

On the morkel one one of the reviews seemed to show that if his foot was down he may get some part behind the line, very close. But its more debattable than the smith one imho.

On the lights the sooner we get the pink ball involved in test cricket the better. This thing also gets on my nerves. The public pays a good amount of money to see game live as does the tv spectators but we get deprieved play through poor over rates as well as them going of for a few shadows. Really one of the aspects I dislike most about test cricket.

Also can't we have a seperate thread where people can discuss this whole kolpak nonsense?? Some of us would like to just discuss the test match and the cricket issues.

No one ever walks though, so I don't think you can ever look at a players reaction to see if he hit it or not. Of course Smith is going to shake his head and say he didn't, because he's more worried about the result than getting the correct decision, it's the same with all players these days.

Smith knows damn well that he hit it though and it's an absolute shambles that it wasn't given on review, whether it be Harper's fault or whoever was controlling the feed.

Only Gilly and amla are walkers. Everyone else will stand there unless they get cleaned bowled or sky one.

 

[Sureshot]

by the same token I doubt england would be throwing a little hissy fit over an umpiring call if they were ahead in this match. don't recall england complaining in the windies when the review system was used in ridiculously contradictory ways to get a few west indian batsmen out.

losers are usually the whiners.

I'll re-iterate what I said above, I don't want this turning in to a slanging match and I have no problems in dishing out infractions if people can't keep it civil.

 

[MUFC1987]

by the same token I doubt england would be throwing a little hissy fit over an umpiring call if they were ahead in this match. don't recall england complaining in the windies when the review system was used in ridiculously contradictory ways to get a few west indian batsmen out.

losers are usually the whiners.

Surely you can see the fairly big difference in terms of the issues between the dodgy decision and having Trott etc in the team.

On the morkel one one of the reviews seemed to show that if his foot was down he may get some part behind the line, very close. But its more debattable than the smith one imho.

On the lights the sooner we get the pink ball involved in test cricket the better. This thing also gets on my nerves. The public pays a good amount of money to see game live as does the tv spectators but we get deprieved play through poor over rates as well as them going of for a few shadows. Really one of the aspects I dislike most about test cricket.

Only Gilly and amla are walkers. Everyone else will stand there unless they get cleaned bowled or sky one.

The problem on the foot thing has come since they changed the rule about having to have something grounded behind the line. The way it's done now it's almost impossible to tell after a number of replays, which causes problems.

On the light thing, I don't know why we don't just start earlier in certain locations around the world. The light seems to get dark at the same point each day, so I don't see why the ICC can't get us all starting slightly earlier.

I'm surprised anyone walks though, it's so accepted that batsmen don't walk that the ones that do almost look a bit foolish for not bending the rules like the others. Credit to Amla if he does though.

 

[rahuldravidfan]

Fact of the matter- Daryl Harper screwed up again. If the reason Daryl failed to hear the nick was because of the mute TV, I think he should consider an alternate career at best.

The Windies have some Poms company.

Thats a funny incident, no doubt. But it may cost England the match

 

[stefan]

Surely you can see the fairly big difference in terms of the issues between the dodgy decision and having Trott etc in the team.

The problem on the foot thing has come since they changed the rule about having to have something grounded behind the line. The way it's done now it's almost impossible to tell after a number of replays, which causes problems.

On the light thing, I don't know why we don't just start earlier in certain locations around the world. The light seems to get dark at the same point each day, so I don't see why the ICC can't get us all starting slightly earlier.

I'm surprised anyone walks though, it's so accepted that batsmen don't walk that the ones that do almost look a bit foolish for not bending the rules like the others. Credit to Amla if he does though.

Someone has said the reason they can't start earlier is because then players have to start warming up at 8:00 am. Pretty lame excuse but that's the reason I have heard some commentators say.

Amla definitly walks. Have seen him walk every time he nicks it. I remember in the one odi vs aus in SA, the aus players didn't appeal he was on 0 but he walked after getting a faint edge. Only guy in the SA side I would call a walker.

 

[Robelinda]

Harper failed massively, should be fired for that. I can only imagine how angry i'd be if this was an Aussie match. In fact i'm angry enough, I want England to win the series!

 

[Ollie_H]

I'm gonna stick my head out and say this is the sort of pitches Test cricket needs to be played on. But of course you can't have all the pitches like this, it is just refreshing and annoying to see that such a pitch is still possible create. Refreshing as the bastmen really have to grind and out play well and the bowlers are getting assistance but annoying as we are just seeing roads.

 

[Valaskjalf]

Yeah nobody wants to see cricket played on pitches where winning the toss / batting first always results in on team playing catch up. Thats what was so boring watching some of the recent India tests....just a flat track with total disregard for bowlers.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

First off, the line belongs to the umpire. So even if Morkel didn't have a part of his boot behind the line, but rather on it, the on-field umpire decision should stick. That's not even the case however, because he had part of his foot behind the line.

The Smith dismissal is inconclusive. Sound is not enough to suggest that there was a nick, especially when both Smith and the umpire stood still. Remember that decisions should only be overturned when there is no doubt that the umpire made the wrong decision - there was doubt. Especially from a TV umpire's point of view in that there was no ball deviation to be seen; I don't just mean the trajectory either, but also the turn of the ball, etc.

Sorry, but that's a load of cobblers. Part of the job of the referral system is to see if it's a no-ball or not and for me, it was. And before you start, I don't do bias - I tell it how I see it. And the Smith decision? Of course it was conclusive - the only possible way a sound could've been made in that position of bat and ball and at that time is if the ball had hit the bat. As for Smith shaking his head and so on - well, what would you do? Jump up in alarm and look at the edge of your bat? No! If that had happened to an England batsman, I'd be relieved that he hadn't been given out! Even Smith himself knew it was out - you could tell in his interview. Sure, he tried to invent some half-arsed excuse about his glove or something, but everyone knows that was out - apart from Mr Harper.

You don't mention who you support, by the way... :sarcasm

MasterBlaster76 added 7 Minutes and 12 Seconds later...

No it shouldn't, if there was conclusive proof that Morkel was on the line, then it's a no-ball, irrelevant of whether that wasn't what the umpire called or not.


---

Valaska/MUFC, please keep it civil guys. Though I expect you've moved on anyway, but hey ho, I haz ze powah!

As for today, there were two issues which concerned me.

The Smith review. It raises many questions, not only (as Andy Flower pointed out) that the lack of a standardised use of technology, is rather disruptive to the game. We have to use the same equipment everywhere. Not only that, but how was that snick not heard? From behind the wicket (elevated keeper view), it even showed a deflection from the bat.

Floodlights. I'm sorry, but this is a farcical decision. We have floodlights, use them, don't have them on all day, then go off the field when the light gets bad. Do they go off for bad light in ODIs as the artificial light takes over from the natural light? No. This talk of shadows is nonsense. You're professional sportsman, at the top of your game. Deal with it, it's not dangerous, it's detrimental to the game. If I'd have been there today, say through a violent thunderstorm, they come out for 3 overs and have to go off for bad light, whilst the floodlights were on, it's a fair bit, I'd be about to throw a tantrum.

Agreed. As Beefy said, the paying public had sat through a thunderstorm, saw the players come back out, only to vanish again a short time later.

MasterBlaster76 added 1 Minutes and 44 Seconds later...

Yeah nobody wants to see cricket played on pitches where winning the toss / batting first always results in on team playing catch up. Thats what was so boring watching some of the recent India tests....just a flat track with total disregard for bowlers.

You can say that again!

 

[Sartaj]

Though the matches have been pretty exciting with close finishes,it doesn't make sense when the better team doesn't win.
I'm pretty sure this 4th test will be a draw too as there is a 50 % (at least) chance of rain in the next 3 days.
The series should have been won by SA 3-1 but instead England will win it 1-0.
Good God!!!
Test cricket can be so meaningless at times.

 

[drainpipe32]

Graeme Smith, whadda player!

 

[Owzat]

England should be thinking that without referrals those decisions would have stood anyway so no need to get knickers in a knot. It's done, like the Pakistanis should have done at the Oval they should have made their objection/complaint about the decision at the time and kept it quiet until AFTER THE TEST. They're not going to change the decision, get on with it and make a noise afterwards.

But the truth is England aren't neck deep in doodoo because of inept TV umpiring, it might have cost them 69 Smith runs and whatever Cook might have added (about 30 runs in all probability, he usually gets out between 50 and 65) We didn't bat well 1st innings, batsmen walking out and playing their usual games with nothing learned from COLLINGWOOD and BELL who, for the second innings in a row, showed the rest how to bat, and some threw their wickets away. When you are in deep trouble you dig in and ride it out until parity is restored - England seem incapable. Our best hope of salvation is the weather, we don't have a penetrative enough attack to bowl our way back into the match and at best would be looking to keep the saffers down to less than 100 runs lead (very optimistic) or more realistically get them out for 300-350.

I suspect the saffers are a bit wound up over their unofficial complaint in the last Test, shame for them they couldn't wind themselves up enough to have won it instead. Someone told me the weather forecast is not good (for South Africa anyway, England will be cock-a-hoop) Could be a Pakistan 00/01 style win, England unconvincing and Pakistan having the better of the series but England winning the one Test that produced a positive result and pinching the series. OK it was a last gasp win in Pakistan compared to a comfortable win for England in the one positive result Test, but essentially you'd say South Africa and Pakistan have bossed the rest.

Owzat added 14 Minutes and 39 Seconds later...

by the same token I doubt england would be throwing a little hissy fit over an umpiring call if they were ahead in this match. don't recall england complaining in the windies when the review system was used in ridiculously contradictory ways to get a few west indian batsmen out.

losers are usually the whiners.

Care to provide backing evidence ie examples, to support this claim.......................

 

[TumTum]

This thread is so dull, c'mon 2 wickets just fell

 

[Owzat]

This thread is so dull, c'mon 2 wickets just fell

Well FYI it is only 8.30 in the morning in England on a Saturday so a lot of people will still be recovering from Friday and in bed.

It's hard to get too excited about quick wickets when you are already behind and only a collapse of dramatic proportions could put England back in the Test. Even 250 all out would give the saffers a 70 run lead, the only real consolation is the series would be drawn at worst.

Owzat added 4 Minutes and 3 Seconds later...

re the playing of four seamers vs three plus a spinner, looks like England are admitting perhaps they made a mistake picking Swann. The three seamers have all bowled 17+ overs, Swann has bowled nine and conceded at four an over. Onions could perhaps have won this match for England with his bowling, not sure Swann is likely to win much.

 

[MaD]

The world does not revolve around England