Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
More significantly, what gives the right for it to be dropped?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** England in Sri Lanka
- Thread starter JASON
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
A combination of gravity, the coefficient of restitution between ball and flesh, reaction time and the speed of muscle contraction
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
The lack of skill to be able to catch a ball by a cricketer.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
And? This has nothing to do with the batsman.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
I don't get all this complaining about the balls Pieterson got out to in the first test. Sure, they kept low (second one especially) but FFS Kevin, you're in Sri Lanka, not Australia. When you come forward, bend your knee a little you idiot. You're not going to make it anywhere in the subcontinent standing tall, especially in Sri Lanka.
Pup Clarke
Cricketer Of The Year
Bit harsh for me. Pietersen had every right to not go forward to that Fernando delivery as it wasn't that full.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Ever watched a game in Sri Lanka? Get forward to pretty much anything.
EDIT: Not referring to Murali here.
EDIT: Not referring to Murali here.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Not saying he wasn't unlucky, and I doubt it would've mattered, but he just doesn't bend his knee enough and it's going to cost him dearly.
If he can front foot hook Brett Lee to the boundary like he's done plenty of times in the past I don't see what's wrong with him pushing forward with his inital movement to every delivery.
But hey, if he scores a hundred in the second dig by doing what he's doing then I'll humbly apolgise to him. Don't see it happening though.
If he can front foot hook Brett Lee to the boundary like he's done plenty of times in the past I don't see what's wrong with him pushing forward with his inital movement to every delivery.
But hey, if he scores a hundred in the second dig by doing what he's doing then I'll humbly apolgise to him. Don't see it happening though.
Wow people are really over-analyzing what I wrote. So much so that they're taking things out of context.
All I said a week or so ago was that Kevin Pietersen went out to a delivery in the first innings that kept low and jagged. It was pretty vicious and condusive of an inconsistent dusty pitch. I doubt even Murali expected it to do what he did. I've seen a billion of those deliveries not given out because umpires aren't sure how much the ball turns, and if it bounces it'll likely bounce above the stumps. In this case the ball basically went dead, it hit Pietersen around the ankles and it wasn't that full of a delivery. Now even for Sri Lanken pitches that ball did something unexpected.
My contention a while ago was that Pietersen, 99% of the time, would have been fine because it's usually safe to be that forward. The ball went dead and I said he's unlucky. That's it. Someone replied saying he should have played like Brian Lara, but I've seen Lara do that millions of times to Murali and be fine. So sorry for having an opinion and saying he's unlucky.
As for the second innings... well the ball kept low but it wasn't as bad a delivery. I saw Ricky Ponting (in the best form of his life) go out to a similar delivery against Bangladesh in 2006, so deliveries like that can catch batsmen out when they keep low.
Lastly, today I just mentioned that England's strength is in their batting and that it's important that they make the most of this wicket. With a great bowler like Murali in their side, facing him becomes less difficult on a less responsive wicket. So I'm hoping England can take advantage of that. Clearly other English batsmen struggled to contend with the slow, low bounce and jagging reactions in the first Test whilst Sri Lanka didn't, hence Sri Lanka were the better team. I'm not taking anything away from Sri Lanka! I'm simply saying England are in conditions where they should be more comfortable and should be able to capitolise on that. The fact that they didn't in the first Test simply means Sri Lanka were better.
My general point is that England have a good chance to do well now, having a few things in their favour, and they have to take advantage of that. Something tells me had I said something to the effect of, "England have things in their favour in this Test" rather than "Sri Lanka had a few things in their favour in the first Test" I wouldn't have gotten such a reaction.
All I said a week or so ago was that Kevin Pietersen went out to a delivery in the first innings that kept low and jagged. It was pretty vicious and condusive of an inconsistent dusty pitch. I doubt even Murali expected it to do what he did. I've seen a billion of those deliveries not given out because umpires aren't sure how much the ball turns, and if it bounces it'll likely bounce above the stumps. In this case the ball basically went dead, it hit Pietersen around the ankles and it wasn't that full of a delivery. Now even for Sri Lanken pitches that ball did something unexpected.
My contention a while ago was that Pietersen, 99% of the time, would have been fine because it's usually safe to be that forward. The ball went dead and I said he's unlucky. That's it. Someone replied saying he should have played like Brian Lara, but I've seen Lara do that millions of times to Murali and be fine. So sorry for having an opinion and saying he's unlucky.
As for the second innings... well the ball kept low but it wasn't as bad a delivery. I saw Ricky Ponting (in the best form of his life) go out to a similar delivery against Bangladesh in 2006, so deliveries like that can catch batsmen out when they keep low.
Lastly, today I just mentioned that England's strength is in their batting and that it's important that they make the most of this wicket. With a great bowler like Murali in their side, facing him becomes less difficult on a less responsive wicket. So I'm hoping England can take advantage of that. Clearly other English batsmen struggled to contend with the slow, low bounce and jagging reactions in the first Test whilst Sri Lanka didn't, hence Sri Lanka were the better team. I'm not taking anything away from Sri Lanka! I'm simply saying England are in conditions where they should be more comfortable and should be able to capitolise on that. The fact that they didn't in the first Test simply means Sri Lanka were better.
My general point is that England have a good chance to do well now, having a few things in their favour, and they have to take advantage of that. Something tells me had I said something to the effect of, "England have things in their favour in this Test" rather than "Sri Lanka had a few things in their favour in the first Test" I wouldn't have gotten such a reaction.
Last edited:
sideshowtim
Banned
I was expecting "Malinga double strike halts England"
It's a little game I play. I read the scorecard, or watch the game on TV, and then at vital times I hop on to cricinfo and try and guess what the title will be for the game
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
Not saying I've ever played on a Lankan dustbowl, but I've played enough cricket regularily in my life to know if the pitch is playing low, it's a pretty good idea to get forward as often as you can.
Forogt to mention. In my first post I made reference to the fact that Pietersen has the longest stride in world cricket and couldn't have been any more forward when he was hit around ankle height.
My original contention included the assertion that Pietersen had gotten as forward as a batsman can and yet the ball jagged and went dead. So basically he was unlucky.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
I haven't seen the ball. Huge call to doubt another player wouldn't be able to keep out a ball. All he has to do is hit the ball, not too hard unless the ball swung late reverse a massive amount.