Separate names with a comma.
Climb into your very own coaches box!
Compete against your BigFooty friends!
Discussion in 'Cricket' started by Phone, Apr 2, 2012.
A number 11 playing a reverse sweep..LMAO
(Log in to remove this ad.)
It's not 1995.
Lyon can barely hit it normally...slog it normally!
Nathan "Sweep shot" Lyon batting well with Starc.
WI are letting it drift here
Starc's in the right place to play the Windy woof
even for you this is just
perhaps not in the spirit of cricket - but why not review for a no ball?
What a catch! He's doing his very best to stay in the team with his work in the field.
Second bad ball Hilf bowled after the full toss to start, Cowan flies across to save the day
bowled him! Clarke through the gate. Turning a mile out there.
I go to bed with the ball leaping off the pitch and turning a mile, interlaced with the odd shooter - and a I wake up check the scorecard and Lyon is wicketless...
That's worrying - this pitch is made for spinners with high actions
So looks like we will win the series 2-0. Not often that happens and the player of the series goes to the losing side. The only 2 real candidates would be Chanderpal and Roach. Been the 2 clear standouts this series. Goes to show they have relied heavily on Chanderpal (and bravo to a lesser extent) to get the runs and roach to get the wickets (with help from the spinners)
Reckon Chanderpal will get it and rightly so, been a great series for him and passed 10000 runs as well, super career.
Aussies have been even in their batting and bowling. So even contributions beats big perfomrances by individuals, who would have guessed lol
I think the key has been bowling with a hard ball. Once the batsmen got in and the ball got old there was not a lot of jumping and turn. Make hay while the sun shines as they say.
Lyon did not bowl badly at all IMO.
As soon as the Chanderpaul - Bravo partnership was broken it was more than likely curtains. Baugh and Sammy and co are not capable of getting 20 let alone 200.
Must admit - can't recall ever seeing pitches like this in the WI before.
If as expected the Aussies wrap up the series 2-0 tonight, I think it will give a pretty false picture of their performance. The series has basically raised more questions than its answered.
No one in the top 6 made a century and we've had to rely on the tailenders to make a half decent score. On the other side of the coin we've been relying on the likes of Hussey, Warner and Clarke to make important breakthroughs because our specialist bowlers have at times lacked penetration.
If we replicate this effort against the Saffers or Poms we are in for a world of pain.
Golden arm Clarke is at it again.
You have to take into account the tough batting conditions throughout the series. Also factor in that both South Africa and England have recently dropped tests to Sri Lanka so you're making a big call there.
I could see a simlar result for England or South Africa in the West Indies. I believe the Windies bowling attack has improved a lot in the last years where of course the batting has regressed.
I am far from negative in my view of the performance of the team in this series. If you look at the pure statistics of the series then you could come to that conclusion, but you can't always rely on them to give you a true indication and in this case you have to factor in the conditions which were not conducive to high quality cricket.
In general the three pitches were all slow and low and at times turned significantly. Batting against the hard ball has been a challenge but after that a lot of the devil disappears. Run scoring has been consistently in the 2.7 an over range, regardless of who is at the crease.
Tailenders have done well when they have thrown the bat, which would be suicide for a top order player. Batsmen that have done well, have done so when they have batted for a long period and often accelerated very late in their innings.
No fault with bowlers as the conditions haven't been overly suitable to any type. Spinners have done ok but primarily with the hard ball, everyone has struggled when it has got old.
Having watched roughly 80% of play, Judging players on this series would be harsh IMO, I reckon this series is a bit of an anomaly.
Another factor is the modern cricket calendar. Players simply aren't getting first-class practise in "away" conditions these days, due to the amount of one-day cricket that's played. This isn't going to change, so I expect the home team to have a substantial advantage in future test series, especially in such unusual condition as we've seen in the Windies this series.
Lots of LBW's with the DRS system - brings spinners into the game and makes the game move along quickly.
Perfect example the Chanderpaul LBW to Clarke - to the naked eye it looked a fraction doubtful with sharp turn from the skipper's left armers, but on examination is found to be hitting middle 3/4 of the way up. Pre-DRS it's "gee, that was close" and the game goes on......
Just wondering what the go is with the DRS? More specifically with Clarke's ball to Chanderpaul.
It was my understanding that if the umpire calls not out and it gets referred, all three criteria must be fulfilled for it to be overturned? That is; pitches in line, hits in line and then more than half of the ball going on to hit the stumps.
I swear it used to be this, has it changed? Because Clarkes ball pitched a long way off the stumps...
I think it's the same as normal LBW rules - as in if you pitch outside the line but strike them in line it's fine.
The pitch of the ball is irrelevant in this circumstance though, left armer to a left hander, it'd be nowhere near leg stump.
EDIT: Beat me to it Torz.