***Official*** South Africa in New Zealand 2012

[straw man]

Anyway... the match is moving along faster than expected but I'd say that was about a par performance by us today. It was yesterday when we all but lost the match. Then today looked like we were back in it, before sliding back to about where we were at the end of yesterday.

This will definitely be enough for Kane Williamson to retain his place and we've seen him get out after a start a few times (like Hobart second innings), but a century would be reaaaaaaaaaaalllly brilliant.

 

[Mike5181]

Yep. The path Taylor's lbw took on VirtualEye seemed to be completely devoid of the very obvious swing. Also, somehow it managed to get the impact point wrong. It was outrageous tbh, I honestly think that was missing.

Yeah, I don't normally argue against technology but in this decision the ball wasn't close to hitting the middle stump like the predicted path showed. It was hitting the outside of leg stump at best. It does raise the question if that one was wrong by that much then how many other decisions are the same.

 

[thierry henry]

Yeah no further swing assumed after impact. What the guy on the radio was saying was that if full toss the umpire should suddenly the assume the ball is going to miraculously travel a wicket-to-wicket line. ie. parallel to the path between middle stump at one end and middle stump at the other.

It's just amazing that a commentator who is supposed to know the game can think this.

Yeah so e.g. a bowler bowling right-arm over comes wide of the crease and hits a right-handed batsman on the full in line with leg-stump. The ball is missing leg by another set of stumps but some people reckon it's out. An unbelievably common misunderstanding.

 

[Flem274*]

Martin Guptill against real teams: 18 matches, 788 @ 23.17, 5 fifties, 0 hundreds

No better than Bell, Papps etc

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Definitely think we wrote off the player's complaints of the tracking system a bit too lightly, this one is dodgy. Is it the same company as with the Hobart test? Definitely a few shockers in that one.

 

[Prince EWS]

Martin Guptill against real teams: 18 matches, 788 @ 23.17, 5 fifties, 0 hundreds

No better than Bell, Papps etc

And Papps averaged 43 against teams that weren't South Africa.

(that may or may not have consisted of just one Test)

Seriously though I don't think New Zealand got the best out of Papps; could've been a good even if inconsistent opener for a few years in his prime, but he spent his prime not getting picked, and he spent his time in the side being thrown to the wolves in South Africa while out of form. Cumming was a bit unfortunate as well in that he spent the first half of his domestic career being only slightly above average and was thrust into the Test side during that period. He hit his peak after being discarded but had been blacklisted by then due to being selected when he wasn't that good. Bell IMO was just frankly too flawed technically, but something (not something great, but something) could've been made of Papps and Cumming with better management.

 

[Jono]

Haven't seen the Taylor LBW, but by most accounts here the eagle-eye ****ed up?

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Swung in a fair bit, hit him in front of leg, apparently somehow smashing full on into the inside half of leg stump.

 

[Flametree]

Martin Guptill against real teams: 18 matches, 788 @ 23.17, 5 fifties, 0 hundreds

No better than Bell, Papps etc

It's all the players included in the "etc" that is so sad...

His head isn't still enough and his bat isn't straight enough. He's never scored big runs at first class level, so it really shouldn't be a shock that he can't hack it against the top sides. Now that he's no longer the go-to back-up spinner, he's in the side for his fielding.

Oh, and the lack of sensible alternatives.

 

[Hurricane]

Why no night watchman.

Vettori had an lbw shout against him too. I do believe in nightwatchman and we should have used one.

 

[Flametree]

Vettori had an lbw shout against him too. I do believe in nightwatchman and we should have used one.

Next question is who would you pick? None of the bottom four look like ideal candidates.

 

[Prince EWS]

Next question is who would you pick? None of the bottom four look like ideal candidates.

Yes, this is true. Bracewell would be ideal but at #8 he's too important in his regular position, and bottom three don't really have the defensive techniques to be successful in the role.

 

[NUFAN]

The only NZ batsman who looks like he could do a job as night watchman is van Wyk. But the only time you would do that is if you were only 1 down close to the end of play.

I hate night watchman, why not have one just before lunch or tea? What's the diff?

 

[Hurricane]

The only NZ batsman who looks like he could do a job as night watchman is van Wyk. But the only time you would do that is if you were only 1 down close to the end of play.

I hate night watchman, why not have one just before lunch or tea? What's the diff?

Good criticism. The only answer I have is that it hurts team psychologically more to go into the next day having lost an extra (important) player compared to losing someone before lunch.

Plus I think batsman are more nervous before stumps so more chance of a wicket - I am making this last reason up.

 

[kingkallis]

Does anyone else reckon it looks like Williamson is using one of those old $40 Kashmir willow bats (that's what I used to have in the mid-90s anyway) because it's so light coloured?

TH, thats expensive. We get Kashmir Willows for $20 here in India

I used to bat with it as a kid...

 

[Cam7]

Yep. The path Taylor's lbw took on VirtualEye seemed to be completely devoid of the very obvious swing. Also, somehow it managed to get the impact point wrong. It was outrageous tbh, I honestly think that was missing.

So do I. That was an absolute shocker as far as the technology is concerned.

My only comfort in the Taylor dismissal is that there was a remote chance that the ball was hitting/clipping the leg stump and the onfield umpire gave Taylor out. Rightly or wrongly (probably should have been given the benefit of the doubt), that was the on-field decision that was made. Remove all the technology and, as they say, read it in the paper.

Also the Hawkeye guys have been proactive in talking about the pros and cons of the system and how they're improving things - seem like a professional outfit. Less sure about Virtual Eye.

I don't think the Virtual Eye people are necessarily less professional than the Hawkeye people. I'm sure both companies are doing their best to improve their systems and make them as accurate as possible.

My beef is with the ICC, who, in their wisdom, decided to accept the predicted/computed path (i.e., something that hasn't actually yet happened) as "evidence". That said, it looks like Virtual Eye somehow didn't plot the actual path of the ball correctly in this instance. Something's gone horribly wrong there, I think.

Definitely think we wrote off the player's complaints of the tracking system a bit too lightly, this one is dodgy. Is it the same company as with the Hobart test?

Yes.

I'm sure there'll be a lot more discussion about the Taylor dismissal on air tomorrow.

 

[straw man]

I don't think the Virtual Eye people are necessarily less professional than the Hawkeye people. I'm sure both companies are doing their best to improve their systems and make them as accurate as possible.

My beef is with the ICC, who, in their wisdom, decided to accept the predicted/computed path (i.e., something that hasn't actually yet happened) as "evidence". That said, it looks like Virtual Eye somehow didn't plot the actual path of the ball correctly in this instance. Something's gone horribly wrong there, I think.

Yes any organisation that vaguely follows good practices would have brought in experts to do due diligence on the systems right at the start before approving them for use. Without that being done there will always be a question on quality. Still, better late than never if the ICC is doing this now.

 

[Hurricane]

Ellis for Arnel next test - don't lose anything in the bowling and batting improves.

 

[Athlai]

Gillespie WAG

Guptill
-
McCullum (keep him at 3!)
Taylor
Williamson
Vettori
van Wyk/Watling
Bracewell
Gillespie
-
Martin

The best batsman we have waiting in the wings are Watling, Flynn, Franklin, Ryder and Brownlie, the best bowlers we have waiting are Boult, Arnel, Southee and Wagner.

Really need to think of the players that will balance the team the best, but openers and bowlers who can bat are just not in abundance at the moment.

 

[Flem274*]

Fit our 11 best players in the team since we have such **** specialists. Dan to open.

McCullum/Flynn
Vettori
McCullum/Flynn
Taylor
Brownlie
Williamson
van Wyk (wk)
Bracewell
Gillespie
Boult
Martin

Seriously though, it's almost at the point where we need to do something experimental because we're running out of openers to throw in there. The two Wellingtonians and Worker are the only guys with a few games who I can think of who haven't drawn the straw yet. We don't have a huge amount of good cricketers so we can't afford to have to choose between say Brownlie and Williamson for the middle order, so someone like Vettori being a gun and becoming an opener would be awesome.