*Official* West Indies In Australia

[SirBloody Idiot]

Òh deear.

 

[Craig]

Chanderpaul goes upstairs.

And is out.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha, another odd review. That was decidedly less plumb than Gayle's to be fair, but it was still stupid. Are they aware they only get two unsuccessful?

 

[Craig]

Haha, another odd review. That was decidedly less plumb than Gayle's to be fair, but it was still stupid. Are they aware they only get two unsuccessful?

Well if you are going to use them, you may as well use them on your good players.

 

[Uppercut]

Haha, well an outside shot at getting a Chanderpaul decision overturned is probably worth more than an odds-on challenge for any other batsman.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well if you are going to use them, you may as well use them on your good players.

Don't really agree with this at all tbh.

 

[aussie]

As I've said before regarding Johnson, if batsman just had the common sense to leave everything that was bowled either on or just outside off stump, they would really have nothing to worry about johnson. One would think that in Australia, this would be even easier given that most delivieres on the stumps end up going over. Dowlin looks like hes making the same mistakes.

It probably would be easier in AUS yea. But i think it depends on the quality of the batsman too, some players dont know where their off-stump is due to the angle creted by the left-armer - thus fall for that trap.

 

[Craig]

Don't really agree with this at all tbh.

Why not? It's not like Dowlin is every going to do anything. But that said, it Gayle and Chanderpaul looked pretty out first time, but I can see why the West Indies did it.

Bravo gone. WI will be lucky to make 100.

 

[Craig]

What a shot by Nash.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Really great spell from Johnson. He's just so much better when he's getting 4-5 balls an over on that off-stump line, builds a lot of pressure and batsmen can't just leave them and score off the bad stuff.

Geez Dowlin looks ordinary thus far.

 

[Langeveldt]

Shot, get an Aussie in there

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Sarwan probably throwing himself off his hotel bed to try to avoid having to come back to this rabble.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why not?

Because the review system isn't in place as a tactical tool to try and get your best players more chances at the expense of your lesser players. It's there to minimise incorrect umpiring decisions. The thought of a team tactically deciding to have one batsman's decision reviewed and not another merely because of who it is really puts a really sour taste in my mouth.

Then again, I don't like the review system at all for this exact reason anyway. I'm fully in favour of technology being used to limit umpiring errors but the system lends itself to more inconsistency than we have currently. If Nash gets a roughie now, he's gone just because Gayle and Chanderpaul were gits. If he batted three he'd have continued his innings. Even if it wasn't tactical to review those two players' wickets, I still think it's ridiculous that we can't have a look at the theoretical Nash dismissal just because Gayle and Chanderpaul were wrong. It's fair in a team sense as such, but cricket's as much an individual game as a team game at times and it's created a genuine inequality.

 

[pasag]

Jeez, you guys turn against players very quickly. Last I saw Hilfy playing tests he was Australia's best bowler. It wasn't even close.

Suprised you don't know he's not rated too highly on here, Ashes condusive conditions nonwithstanding so clearly not a case of turning on players quickly (although the comment as a generalisation has merit).

Watto's been great in slips today, Ponting not so much.

Seems like teams lose the plot when referring vs Australia, SA were aweful as well.

 

[tooextracool]

Then again, I don't like the review system at all for this exact reason anyway. I'm fully in favour of technology being used to limit umpiring errors but the system lends itself to more inconsistency than we have currently. If Nash gets a roughie now, he's gone just because Gayle and Chanderpaul were gits. If he batted three he'd have continued his innings. Even if it wasn't tactical to review those two players' wickets, I still think it's ridiculous that we can't have a look at the theoretical Nash dismissal just because Gayle and Chanderpaul were wrong. It's fair in a team sense as such, but cricket's as much an individual game as a team game at times and it's created a genuine inequality.

DWTA. Nash's dismissal (as a result of a poor decision) would be as a direct result of the selfishness of both Gayle and Chanderpaul. Yes it would be unfair to Nash, but cricket and life in general is hardly just and the fact of the matter is that the selfishness of those 2 players would provide just rewards to the team as a whole.

 

[tooextracool]

Suprised you don't know he's not rated too highly on here, Ashes condusive conditions nonwithstanding so clearly not a case of turning on players quickly (although the comment as a generalisation has merit).

Why though? I mean his FC record is hardly flash but its pretty good when you consider that he plays his home games at Hobart. Im not convinced about him fully just yet, but I do rate him.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why though? I mean his FC record is hardly flash but its pretty good when you consider that he plays his home games at Hobart.

Hobart's a greentop domestically.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hobart's a greentop domestically.

Indeed, Pete George just took 8-fer on it despite barely looking like taking a wicket anywhere else.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hobart's a greentop domestically.

Not really. Has been since the new curator moved in at the start of last year, but before that it was harder to take wickets than at Adelaide.

Would hardly say that it's been an unfair pitch, by the way.

 

[aussie]

Hilfy is AUS version of Hoggard but 5-10 mphs quicker. He will swing the new ball & has the ability to reverse swing the old ball on flat decks & do what Hoggard did in Adelaide 06. So overall i see problem with him.