***Official*** South Africa in India

[Manee]

If it hits the glove, you are out.

Just brushing over my rule book, and it turns out that somebody has to catch it before it bounces too

Today at least 3 of the Indian batsmen threw their wickets, Yuvraj, Dhoni and Ganguly. All three were batting very fluently and rarely looked getting out.

Yuvraj top edged a sweep. He top edged it because it bounced (or held in the pitch) more than he expected. Furthemore, he looked to play the cross bat shot because of the turn that the pitch was aiding. Dhoni knew that on the pitch, he could only score a boundary safely by getting to the pitch of the ball. I didn't see Ganguly's dismissal ("damn you, Sky Sports xtra!",) but I assume that he was trying to up the scoring with the tail in. Moreover, on a pitch where 4 runs may turn out to be valuable, a batsmen may choose to play a rash shot, despite of the risks in hope of earning four quick runs.

This is not to say that they got out playing sensibly, but the pitch did play a part in their dismissal, albeit a small one.

 

[honestbharani]

Sorry, should've been more specific - it's wrist and below, so he was out

Interesting case a few years ago where they introduced gloves with wristband-like inclusion.

Umps upheld many appeals where ball hit wristband area, despite it covering areas above wrist, as they felt it was part of glove

yeah... very interesting. but I think wrists shouldn't be included,fwiw... If it hits you on the glove upto your wrists, then it is ok, but to include wrists too seems a little too much.


But then again, given some of the tracks we get and the bats and stuff improving, the bowlers could do with all this.

 

[ret]

The pitch is not producing one brute per spell though, several deliveries are holding on the pitch or keeping low - so it is a tough pitch to bat on and to score fast on. Furthermore, he had to rebuild and ensure above all else that he did not get out and spark a dramatic collapse and so had to be super cautious. And finally, batting in a positive frame of mind is not easy, on the best of pitches, against Steyn, Ntini and Mørkel with the new ball, especially for a naturally defensive player who is in bad form.

but woudn't you say the same thing for his 100 at Chennai .... no matter what the pitch, he seems to bat in the same mould and usually the same reasons are given for it

 

[Sanz]

Just brushing over my rule book, and it turns out that somebody has to catch it before it bounces too

Dont try to become an anoying prick like Raghav. I was talking about the Dravid dimissal which somdone did catch.

Yuvraj top edged a sweep. He top edged it because it bounced (or held in the pitch) more than he expected. Furthemore, he looked to play the cross bat shot because of the turn that the pitch was aiding. Dhoni knew that on the pitch, he could only score a boundary safely by getting to the pitch of the ball. I didn't see Ganguly's dismissal ("damn you, Sky Sports xtra!",) but I assume that he was trying to up the scoring with the tail in. Moreover, on a pitch where 4 runs may turn out to be valuable, a batsmen may choose to play a rash shot, despite of the risks in hope of earning four quick runs.

This is not to say that they got out playing sensibly, but the pitch did play a part in their dismissal, albeit a small one.

Point was there were all showing needless aggression especially when it was only the second day and a lead of 70-80 could be very important for India who are going to have to bat in the 4th inning.

In any case I can't believe how can anyone justify Dhoni's dismissal. I get it Yuvi was trying to play a shot and got out, and Ganguly was running out of partners. But Dhoni ? It was not as if he was having any difficulty in scoring runs.

 

[Sanz]

I just looked at Dravid's SR of 27.35 which translates into him playing 106 balls and getting 29

on such tracks, you have to play with a positive frame of mind because you are always going to get that unplayable ball that gets you. It's how much you do before you get that ball is what matters

in Dravid's case, it looks as if he is not doing enough before he gets that 'unplayable' ball .... when he gets out to that unplayable ball not enough runs are on the board and the opportunity to score of the relatively hard ball is lost .... may be a few positive moves by him would have fetched a few boundaries and got India over 300. It's rare to find that he would not have got some balls that he could have put away in the 106 balls that he faced .... and the way he is playing, he could be bringing the bowlers into rhythm, which may not be a problem for him but could be for other batsmen

not criticizing his contribution here but looking at it from a different angle

It was only the second day for Christ's sake. Let me ask you this, would you have been happier if Dravid was still batting at the end of the day with a strike rate of 20 and Indian score 260 for 5 or so ?

 

[Prince EWS]

on such tracks, you have to play with a positive frame of mind because you are always going to get that unplayable ball that gets you. It's how much you do before you get that ball is what matters

Yeah look, I know you think attacking batting is the way to go, and while I disagree with you, you're entitled to that opinion. However, you can't backup your stance with the pitch conditions all the time if you say it regardless of the pitch. You moan about it on flat pitches, saying you need to score quickly to force a result, and you moan about it on sporting pitches, saying you need to score quickly before you get the unplayable ball.

As I said, you're entitled to think batsmen should go hell for leather all the time, but please don't try to make it look like you're saying it because of the pitch.

 

[ret]

It was only the second day for Christ's sake. Let me ask you this, would you have been happier if Dravid was still batting at the end of the day with a strike rate of 20 and Indian score 260 for 5 or so ?

We knows it's 2nd day .... this is not a test where you plan as if it's going to go on to the final session of the last day

In if and buts scenarios, I would be happier if Sehwag were batting and India were 330 for 5 .... you have to analyze the situation at its face value and not stretch things .... he played 106 balls and scored 29. there would be occasions where he would have got some opportunity to score off which i assume that he didn't. Let's say 22 more runs from him is a more realistic than him batting out the whole day with India ending up at 310/9. And we are not even talking abt him playing more balls or taking unnecessary risks

 

[Termanati]

he was hit ON the wrist, I believe... And his hand was holding the bat...... So not sure how the rule applies here...

Hit his glove, out.

 

[ret]

Yeah look, I know you think attacking batting is the way to go, and while I disagree with you, you're entitled to that opinion. However, you can't backup your stance with the pitch conditions all the time if you say it regardless of the pitch. You moan about it on flat pitches, saying you need to score quickly to force a result, and you moan about it on sporting pitches, saying you need to score quickly before you get the unplayable ball.

As I said, you're entitled to think batsmen should go hell for leather all the time, but please don't try to make it look like you're saying it because of the pitch.

playing with a positive frame of mind and attacking are two different things .... I would advocate attacking more on a flat pitch, while playing with a positive frame of mind on this kind of pitch is where you are NOT attacking looking to score of the bad deliveries

playing attacking, you even hit the good balls, while playing with a positive frame you don't miss out on bad balls and look to score when opportunity presents

playing attacking, you step it up on your conditions while playing with a positive frame of mind, you counter attack and step it up when the opportunity presents

See the difference

On a closing note, i would like to say that i get the impression of you picking out stuff from my posts on various thread and posting on it by trying to find some loop holes in them when there are none rather than making a strong case for what you believe .... that only invites trouble in the long run

 

[Manee]

Dont try to become an anoying prick like Raghav. I was talking about the Dravid dimissal which somdone did catch.

You misunderstood me, I was just making gentle fun of how you said "if it hits the glove, it is out" which implies that a ball hitting a glove is automatically out. No one gets my jokes.

 

[Termanati]

Yeah look, I know you think attacking batting is the way to go, and while I disagree with you, you're entitled to that opinion. However, you can't backup your stance with the pitch conditions all the time if you say it regardless of the pitch. You moan about it on flat pitches, saying you need to score quickly to force a result, and you moan about it on sporting pitches, saying you need to score quickly before you get the unplayable ball.

As I said, you're entitled to think batsmen should go hell for leather all the time, but please don't try to make it look like you're saying it because of the pitch.

And where did that come on my assesment of harris?

What do you think of harris now???
As i said, he is becoming a problem, with teh fact he isnt threatening, and you go on to say my post is rediculous.... Well im sorry YOU couldnt see it coming.

And as it turns out, Im right. Everyone said that harris has dissapointed, and now india have a lead, and sa can only HOPE they keep it in the 20's, as that already may be a problem.

Yet you ignore my reply to you, and just carry on as if nothing happened.

You were WRONG and an ass, and as i can see it, your trying to Pick points in other peoples posts and Over analyse them .

 

[Sanz]

Let's say 22 more runs from him is a more realistic than him batting out the whole day with India ending up at 310/9. And we are not even talking abt him playing more balls or taking unnecessary risks

There is no difference between 289/9 and 310/9. But there is hell lot of difference between 260/5 and 289/9.

 

[ret]

There is no difference between 289/9 and 310/9. But there is hell lot of difference between 260/5 and 289/9.

saying that Ind would have been 260/5, if Dravid had played that day is akin to saying Ind would have been 330/5, if Sehwag had been playing .... and there is a bigger difference b/w 260/5 and 330/5 .... so whats your point?

and are you sure that there is no difference b/w 288/9 and 310/9 on this pitch? thats a lead of 45 vs 23 w/ one wkt remaining

 

[silentstriker]

SA are ahead for mine. Lead of 23 is not enough considering we'll be batting last. Barring an unlikely partnership here, India will be in a difficult position. Chasing anything over 175-200 will be very tough, and 250+ would mean SA would be very comfortable.

 

[funnygirl]

Yes SS ,India has that disadvantage to bat in the 4th innings ,which is going to be a hard job .SA all out for 75 will be the key

 

[Irish Cricketer]

guys what you think of paul harris today? Should he have got a bit more from the pitch which in reality suited a spinner. i've been generally impressed with him however throughout the series.

 

[silentstriker]

guys what you think of paul harris today? Should he have got a bit more from the pitch which in reality suited a spinner. i've been generally impressed with him however throughout the series.

You have? Why? He has been pretty ineffective throughout the series, and he should have done a lot better today. Maybe in the second innings, he'll come into play. Even the Indian 3rd spinner bowled better than him. Of course, that's slightly unfair as unlike India, Harris doesn't need to play an attacking role. But really, if you can't take wickets on this pitch, you won't take wickets.

 

[cricketboy29]

I wonder, does Dhoni have this little thing in his head, that shouts out 'advance down the track, advance down the track now', thats the second time he's done that when he really didn't need to. I'd say we're in an ok position atm, sreesanth might biff a few fours, as well as Ishant, he might get out first ball. One thing, I hope they don't do, is try and defend the ball, and play like batsman. Because, in my opinion, all that would do, is tire them out while not adding runs to the table, before the 'unplayable:P' ball comes along.

As Ganguly said, 9 wickets for 113 in the first innings. So maybe we can dismiss them for cheap, unless someone produces a counterattack ala Martyn/Gillespie from few years ago. Man that was annoying.

Home win for India still a big possiblility one feels.

 

[Googenheim]

You misunderstood me, I was just making gentle fun of how you said "if it hits the glove, it is out" which implies that a ball hitting a glove is automatically out. No one gets my jokes.

Quiet, you annoying prick.

 

[Manee]

Oh yeah? Well, I've got one for you.

How about...

You be quiet, you annoying prick