West Indies tour of Australia, November-December 2009

[Cricketdude]

There is no way of telling if it hit or not. It was so thin that it was impossible to tell, even on hotspot. It was the right decision to give him out on third umpire even if he may not have been out.

 

[McLOVIN]

Bollinger to Roach, OUT, high drama! Australia have appealed for a caught behind and Roach has been given, he wants a referral, it's so marginal, can't really tell if he nicked it or not, replays aren't conclusive and in such cases I think the on-field decision should stay, Roach fended at the ball off the back foot as it angled across him ... the Australians were extremely confident ... Hot Spot shows nothing much ... the wait is long and tense ... and he's been given ... fair call too since there was no evidence either way

hows that a fair call if there is NO EVIDENCE! on the 1st test this guy said, fair call, there was no fair evidence, when it wasnt given out.

whats the point of this review system then? i bet if it was the OZs or any other bo$$ team , it wouldnt have been given out

 

[TumTum]

The AFL haven't played at the WACA since the turn of the century?

Best way is to destroy the Eagles :laugh They suck now anyway

 

[ajdude]

Yeah, if it wasn't given out by the on-field umpire, then Ponting challenged, it would probably have stayed not out. Although, there wasn't an edge on that; isn't there a stage where common sense should prevail?

Just as I say that, Cricinfo comes to my side.

The irony is that, if Bowden had given him not out, and the Australians had appealed, Roach might well have been given not out after the review.

 

[TumTum]

Yeah, if it wasn't given out by the on-field umpire, then Ponting challenged, it would probably have stayed not out. Although, there wasn't an edge on that; isn't there a stage where common sense should prevail?

Common sense is not how the review system works.

They took it off after the Challange system was a massive failure full of random ████.

 

[smssia0112]

Pretty controversial way to end the series. I'm disappointed to be honest, I was sort of hoping the West Indies would win.

 

[shirazu]

The review system is awful. What is wrong with admitting that no human umpire, watching the game at real time in what can be a noisy stadium, can be as good as slow motion replays, hotspot, snicko, hawkeye combined. The worst thing is that the lack of an edge was so clear here. If you can't overturn a decision where the bat clearly shows no mark, then they shouldn't bother using hotspot for these reviews since it's supposedly very expensive. And there was no sound and no deviation on the ball either.

The worst thing about this is that the way things are going, I think they will do away with the reviews. But the problem is not the idea of the reviews but the implementation.

 

[angryangy]

whats the point of this review system then? i bet if it was the OZs or any other bo$$ team , it wouldnt have been given out

Johnson got a similar decision at Brisbane. The flaw is that no evidence = no overturn.

 

[ajdude]

Common sence is not how the review system works.

They took it off after the Challange system was a massive failure full of random ████.

Well yeah, I suppose, but there was daylight between the bat/ball there. Eh.

 

[Dare]

Its not the 1st time it happened, Chanderpaul got the same raw deal in the 2nd tests.

The only disappointment in this tour was the 1st test. Lost a key bowler, and got blown out. The team came back strong and did really well in the 2nd test and had Australia in trouble and then in the 3rd test had Australia in trouble again. All I wanted when the series started was for the team to put up a fight and not get embarrassed and the team did really well after the majority didn't play cricket for a long time and just one warm up in Australia.

Also Watson only getting a 15% fine is the biggest bullshit decision in the past year. Got to say they tweaked that one up really badly.

 

[TumTum]

Johnson got a similar decision at Brisbane. The flaw is that no evidence = no overturn.

That is NOT a flaw, this is how the system works, to ONLY over turn SHOCKING decisions.

 

[shravi]

Anyways, 2-0 doesn't show how well West Indies have played in this series. It has unearthed Adrian Barath's and Kemar Roach's talent while also showing that players such as Gayle and Bravo can really step it up when needed. If Shiv and Barath were fit, West Indies could have won this match. If Edwards and Taylor and were there, the scoreline could have been 1-1. Should've, could've, would've though. Ifs and buts don't count but I think this bodes well for West Indies cricket and should give them a lot of confidence heading into the one day series and future test series' knowing that they gave the Aussies a run for their money in their own backyard.

 

[MUFC1987]

That is NOT a flaw, this is how the system works, to ONLY over turn SHOCKING decisions.

I'd say that being given out caught when you don't hit it is a shocking decision.....

 

[pcfan123]

God damn Sarwan, even Roach and Tongue batted with more conviction. Windies should have at least drawn this series if now won it 2-1. Australia at home are very very beatable and hopefully that is the lesson that other teams take away from this series, including the England boys.

 

[aussie1st]

The team losing 2-0 managed to get player of the series, don't think you would see that very often. But Gayle truely deserved that, he was definitely the best player in the series, if Bollinger played 1 more test he might have challenged.