The Cricket Thread

[Azza]

The problem is when teams like India come out and then you have matches where they become absolute batathons - 550 vs 500 etc. Gets very boring...

[Azza]

Thoughts on the pitches? I'm still concerned that Australian pitches - particularly Sydney and Melbourne - are far from what they used to be and are becoming rather flat, lifeless decks... even if there was some improvement this year.

The pitches these days are mainly drop in. Correct me please if I'm wrong but I think only Sydney is the real deal.

And remember, all our major cricket fields in this country get plenty of traffic during winter as well with Ping Pong and Rugby League.

Gabba is still an excellent pitch. It's a drop in. Not sure there's a correlation.

Gabbas not a drop in

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

Yes sorry, you're right. And it's easily the best wicket in the country

[Northern Raider]

Adelaide deck plays pretty well.

[-TW-]

Adelaide deck plays pretty well.

Easily, it used to be a boring road until they started leaving grass on it.

That should be the edict from CA, leave **** grass on it

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[Northern Raider]

Adelaide deck plays pretty well.

Easily, it used to be a boring road until they started leaving grass on it.

That should be the edict from CA, leave **** grass on it

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

Last season they had almost the perfect test wicket. Plenty in it for the bowlers but consistent enough that disciplined batsmen could get runs. This season it was a lot flatter.

[Azza]

Also who was the bonehead who decided not to play a test at the Gabba last season. Hopefully that is rectified next time around.

[Matt]

Thoughts on the pitches? I'm still concerned that Australian pitches - particularly Sydney and Melbourne - are far from what they used to be and are becoming rather flat, lifeless decks... even if there was some improvement this year.

I thought about the importance of batting first in these locations, Australia has made 400+ in their first innings and then been able to bowl out the Kiwi's twice within 4 days each time. Australia did not bat quickly on the first day of each test either. The Kiwi's have had injury and illness to reduce an average side on paper to an ordinary side on the field.

Without being demeaning, I think the rating of the Kiwi's as the No.2 side in the world at Test cricket was flattering them. Their bowling depth just could not apply enough pressure to keep the Aussies under 400 in their first dig. The Australians had specific plans for the Kiwi batsmen and generally executed the plans well. Cummins applied pressure spell after spell as the bowling unit went about their task and generally they were well backed up in the field.

If the Sydney and Melbourne tracks were better for bowling then the Tests may have been over in less than 4 days.

[julian87]

Also who was the bonehead who decided not to play a test at the Gabba last season. Hopefully that is rectified next time around.

It’s a catch 22 though.

Brisbane crowds are poor and I’ve no doubt that’s because it’s an absolute **** of a place to watch cricket. It’s a boring cement coliseum that sucks in the heat and humidity but can’t suck in any atmosphere.

[Azza]

Maybe. At the end of the day we want to win test matches and against better opposition, we want to play at the toughest venues for them and the best for us. That's the Gabba every day of the week. When we go to India, I doubt the Indian Cricket Board gives two hoots what venues Australia wants to play at.

[greeneyed]

Also who was the bonehead who decided not to play a test at the Gabba last season. Hopefully that is rectified next time around.

It’s a catch 22 though.

Brisbane crowds are poor and I’ve no doubt that’s because it’s an absolute **** of a place to watch cricket. It’s a boring cement coliseum that sucks in the heat and humidity but can’t suck in any atmosphere.

I was surprised by how poor the quality of the stadium is when I went to the Gabba a couple of years ago. The opaque roof seems to allow a lot of the heat radiate through... provides little relief and just traps heat and humidity.

The crowds have certainly been poor in Brisbane for whatever reason.

[Azza]

It hasn't been renovated for years.

[RedRaider]

The problem is when teams like India come out and then you have matches where they become absolute batathons - 550 vs 500 etc. Gets very boring...

I think the batting of Pujara surprised the Aussies last season. All the focus was on Kholi, but, except in Perth, Pujara was a rock. I think the Australians were still learning the game without the batting of Smith and Warner last season. Justin Langer had just come in and the side was struggling to be a team imo. This year the players have gelled. The bowlers seemed to have a plan for every opposition batsman. India are the worlds No.1 Test cricket nation so I want us to have another crack at them. I'm already champing at the bit for them to be in Australia again next season.

[Azza]

Yeah but that doesn't go to my point at all. Often when India come out here we have series where the pitches are flat, and the scores are 500+ for both sides (or close to it). I think it's much more exciting test cricket when the matches are lower scoring, e.g. 250 vs 300 - but that necessitates pitches which give more assistance to the bowlers.

[Matt]

Yeah but that doesn't go to my point at all. Often when India come out here we have series where the pitches are flat, and the scores are 500+ for both sides (or close to it). I think it's much more exciting test cricket when the matches are lower scoring, e.g. 250 vs 300 - but that necessitates pitches which give more assistance to the bowlers.

350 used to be a great 1st innings score.

Then in the Hayden, Ponting, Gilchrist era, they'd score that in a day.

Now u have Langer saying we want 400+ 1st innings.

No, no, no. Go back to 350 being a good score. That means that there is enough for the bowlers and batsmen.

So I'm with u Azza.

[Azza]

They were great batsmen, but that was also around the time Australian pitches started flattening out (ever since around 03/04 we've started having issues IMO).

[yeh raiders]

How stupid is the boundary catch rule.

You can jump from outside the field of play and bat it back, so stupid.

[Makaveli]

Ridiculous

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

But he caught it... inside the rope, didn't he?

[yeh raiders]

So you can Take a seat in the stands, catch it on the fly and throw it back?

Total crap of a rule

[greeneyed]

So you can Take a seat in the stands, catch it on the fly and throw it back?

Total crap of a rule

But he caught it inside the rope first?

[yeh raiders]

So you can Take a seat in the stands, catch it on the fly and throw it back?

Total crap of a rule

But he caught it inside the rope first?

The catch wasn’t complete until he ran over the rope and then came back in.

It’s a very silly rule.

[greeneyed]

So you can Take a seat in the stands, catch it on the fly and throw it back?

Total crap of a rule

But he caught it inside the rope first?

The catch wasn’t complete until he ran over the rope and then came back in.

It’s a very silly rule.

But a foot was on the ground and the ball was in his hand. I can’t see anything wrong with it.

[bonehead]

so GE,

a bomb gets juggled over the dead ball hasn't touched the ground, player steps dead jumps up bats it back into the in goal you'd be happy with the try awarded?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

so GE,

a bomb gets juggled over the dead ball hasn't touched the ground, player steps dead jumps up bats it back into the in goal you'd be happy with the try awarded?

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

It’s a different thing isn’t it? If a ball is caught in cricket, play stops as the batsman is out. If he catches it touching the rope or on the other side, there’s no catch as the player is out of bounds. Runs are recorded. I could be misunderstanding... if the umpire last night was saying the second player is the one deemed to have caught the ball. In that case, the rule seems strange.

[-TW-]

The one who bats it back was over the rope

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

[greeneyed]

The one who bats it back was over the rope

Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

But not before he caught it inside the field of play?

[gangrenous]

So you can Take a seat in the stands, catch it on the fly and throw it back?

Total crap of a rule

From what I read you can’t do that under the rule. You have to have touched it inside the rope first.

[Matt]

So you can Take a seat in the stands, catch it on the fly and throw it back?

Total crap of a rule

No, the rule states he must be on the field as the ball is delivered.
However, as soon as it is delivered, he can run into the stands.
Then, as long as he jumps, he can throw or bat the ball back into play before he hits the ground.

[Makaveli]

That is interesting. I wonder if we'll see a change of out-fielding tactic now.

We are used to seeing players patrol the boundaries and attempt to jump (from inside) if the ball is travelling over their heads. However they are best to leave the field of play (after the ball has been bowled), wait on the outside of the ring, and then jump to bat the ball back into the field of play. Easier said than done though, and of course, you still need someone inside to catch it.

[Matt]

That is interesting. I wonder if we'll see a change of out-fielding tactic now.

We are used to seeing players patrol the boundaries and attempt to jump (from inside) if the ball is travelling over their heads. However they are best to leave the field of play (after the ball has been bowled), wait on the outside of the ring, and then jump to bat the ball back into the field of play. Easier said than done though, and of course, you still need someone inside to catch it.

correct

[Northern Raider]

I was at the game last night and everybody around me was confused. We all though it was six and couldn't work out how the ump came to the Out decision.

If the decision was correct then the rule should be changed. Any player out of play e.g. over the boundary, should have to re-enter play before touching the ball again.

[Northern Raider]

It's all explained in the story here, including the rules.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... legitimate

Decision was correct but can't say I like the rule.

[Makaveli]

The TV umpire originally said 'Not Out' when he was reviewing the catch. Wade though was walking off and waited at the boundary rope for the decision to appear on the big screen. The umpire then seemed to have been told about the rule as he changed his mind and asked for another replay, before declaring it out. So clearly the umpire had no idea about the rule, either.

[Northern Raider]

The way it reads a player could run over the boundary, jump in the air and knock the ball back in to prevent a Six. Doesn't sound right at all.

[Matt]

The way it reads a player could run over the boundary, jump in the air and knock the ball back in to prevent a Six. Doesn't sound right at all.

Thats exactly the rule, and not how anyone believed it to be. Wont be a difficult fix, but a fix is needed.