***Official India in New Zealand***

[Dick Rockett]

Don't get me wrong, NZ have bowled pretty well (not well enough to deserve wickets on this pitch) but most of the wickets have come from reckless shots. This time, it was the umpire.

Sure, I get what you're saying. ******** () shots play a part, but you still have to put the ball in the right areas. I've noticed a lot of wickets have come from wide-ish balls - perhaps the NZ team identified a weakness?

 

[silentstriker]

Sometimes, the fielding side ask the question when they genuinely don't know. This one was so far from being out that Jamie How, if no-one else, must have realised that the appeal was speculative at best (I'm struggling to avoid using a less politically correct term).

Oh, bugger. The term is 'dishonest'.

Well, I don't think it's at a Michael Clarke one bounce level. I think everyone is guilty of appealing for a lot of things that they know have no shot. Like appealing for a LBW clearly outside the line with a shot (like earlier). And yea, there is no downside right now to overappealing. Unless there is some sort of penalty per appeal, I don't think it'll go away.

This would be quite harsh, but what about a 2 run penalty per appeal turned down?

 

[profernity]

The arrogance never ceases to amaze.

NZ didn't bowl well enough to deserve wickets? You're kidding me right?

Didn't sound arrogant to me. So far in this thread the consensus appears to be that the wickets were a combination of good bowling and poor batting, not solely one or the other. This pitch was never going to make it easy to get wickets. It would take something amazing to get a wicket without some assistance from the batsman.

 

[Craig]

No, you're kidding yourself with this notion that anyone who takes credit away from the Kiwis must be saying it out of arrogance. I'll say it again, NZ didn't bowl well enough to deserve this many wickets on this pitch.

Then you can say that about a lot of bowlers IMO.

 

[Jono]

This would be quite harsh, but what about a 2 run penalty per appeal turned down?

Haha, you'd be even more pissed off if an appeal for caught behind that was clearly out (Symonds in Sydney, Franklin first innings) is turned down.

 

[Polo23]

Well, not exactly. This is ME calling the appeal questionable at best, not the Indians. I'm of an age where I feel that cheating, gamesmanship, call it what you will, has crept into the game more and more to the extent that it has reached an unacceptable level. I'm quite consistent in that. It's just a shame that the players aren't, and feel that if they can get away with something, they will.

That's fine, as long as you are consistent. I'm guessing you said the same thing when the Indians appealed successfully for the James Franklin caught behind in the first test also?

 

[luckyeddie]

Well, I don't think it's at a Michael Clarke one bounce level. I think everyone is guilty of appealing for a lot of things that they know have no shot. Like appealing for a LBW clearly outside the line with a shot (like earlier). And yea, there is no downside right now to overappealing. Unless there is some sort of penalty per appeal, I don't think it'll go away.

This would be quite harsh, but what about a 2 run penalty per appeal turned down?

It's difficult.

Adam Gilchrist was universally praiised for his tendency to walk when he knew he was out. Perhaps it requires one fielder to say "no, actually you weren't out".

Sorry, I have a Victorian attitude trapped inside a 21st century inhabitant. Now where's that boy? My chimney needs sweeping.

 

[Polo23]

No, you're kidding yourself with this notion that anyone who takes credit away from the Kiwis must be saying it out of arrogance. I'll say it again, NZ didn't bowl well enough to deserve this many wickets on this pitch. That doesn't mean they won't deserve the victory if India continue with the reckless shots (because they've outperformed the Indians in all departments so far), but that doesn't change my point.

I'm sorry but that simply is arrogance. As if you think the Indian batsmen are somehow untouchable on this pitch, which obviously isn't the case.

As far as i'm concerned every test wicket is earned. New Zealand earned their wickets yesterday through good consistent bowling, but mainly through their batting on the first and second day. Scoreboard pressure shouldnt be underestimated. The Indians felt the pinch and suffered because of it. New Zealand thoroughly deserved their success through good cricket.

 

[luckyeddie]

That's fine, as long as you are consistent. I'm guessing you said the same thing when the Indians appealed successfully for the James Franklin caught behind in the first test also?

Yep. And the one where McIntosh missed the ball by a tram ride in NZ's first innings (although at least that had the old 'two noises' excuse)

Edit: one noise. Bat on pad.

 

[Polo23]

Yep. And the one where McIntosh missed the ball by a tram ride in NZ's first innings (although at least that had the old 'two noises' excuse)

Well in that case...it's simply a part of cricket nowadays, get used to it.

 

[luckyeddie]

Well in that case...it's simply a part of cricket nowadays, get used to it.

So don't bloody whinge when it happens to your side then.

 

[MoxPearl]

I dont think i can take the commentators saying how much of a "Great pitch" this is anymore...

And there is so much "blaming the bad shots" in this thread is stupid.. its how cricket is.. get over it.

There has also been ****ty umpire decisions both ways.. its also how cricket is.

 

[Polo23]

So don't bloody whinge when it happens to your side then.

Where did I whinge?

 

[Flem274*]

A bit like All Blacks fans TBH.

Haha yeah.

The wicket may have been lucky, but wasn't there an edge earlier that was plainly out? Evened up imo. The umpires are complete **** though.

 

[Flem274*]

Sure, I get what you're saying. ******** () shots play a part, but you still have to put the ball in the right areas. I've noticed a lot of wickets have come from wide-ish balls - perhaps the NZ team identified a weakness?

Shot selection.

Under-rated talent, shot selection. In the last 12 months our lot have learnt that the hard way.

 

[Jono]

There has also been ****ty umpire decisions both ways.. its also how cricket is.

True, but hopefully not for much longer

What I don't like is that one test series (SA vs. Aus) has the referral system. Yet this one doesn't.

Both players' stats count to their test record. So why does Mark Boucher get to add more runs to his tally when he's given incorrectly out. But Dravid (or whomever else has been wrongly given out this series) can't?

****in' ICC.

 

[Flem274*]

Tbf, refferals would have allowed McIntosh to make us cringe some more.

In other news, Aucklands teenage opening batsman replacement for McIntosh, Jeet Ravaal, is 94*. Finally we're getting some at least promising openers.

 

[Craig]

True, but hopefully not for much longer

What I don't like is that one test series (SA vs. Aus) has the referral system. Yet this one doesn't.

Both players' stats count to their test record. So why does Mark Boucher get to add more runs to his tally when he's given incorrectly out. But Dravid (or whomever else has been wrongly given out this series) can't?

****in' ICC.

Excuse my ignorance, but any decision from the ICC is voted on by all the Test playing members, so therefore it should be those who voted on that, should be the ones who get called up for a **** decision. It's not like there is some God in the Ivory Towers that is the ICC making decisions like "South Africa v Australia will have refferals, but not New Zealand v India".

 

[adharcric]

Sure, I get what you're saying. ******** () shots play a part, but you still have to put the ball in the right areas. I've noticed a lot of wickets have come from wide-ish balls - perhaps the NZ team identified a weakness?

NZ certainly put the ball in the right areas and I acknowledged that they've bowled pretty well, but that isn't enough on this pitch. Today's the perfect example - NZ have bowled quite well (better than in the first innings, especially Martin and Patel) but haven't taken any wickets because India have batted properly on a pitch with no demons.

I'm sorry but that simply is arrogance. As if you think the Indian batsmen are somehow untouchable on this pitch, which obviously isn't the case.

As far as i'm concerned every test wicket is earned. New Zealand earned their wickets yesterday through good consistent bowling, but mainly through their batting on the first and second day. Scoreboard pressure shouldnt be underestimated. The Indians felt the pinch and suffered because of it. New Zealand thoroughly deserved their success through good cricket.

I'm not going to bother with the first part of the post ...

The bowlers shouldn't get credit for scoreboard pressure or batsmen playing ridiculous shots - yeah, they've bowled good lines for the most part but that's not really why India bundled out for 300 on this pitch. Sorry if you can't hear anything but praise about your side. I think I've given NZ enough credit that I don't need to defend myself here.

 

[Craig]

Tbf, refferals would have allowed McIntosh to make us cringe some more.

In other news, Aucklands teenage opening batsman replacement for McIntosh, Jeet Ravaal, is 94*. Finally we're getting some at least promising openers.

What has his scores like been this season?